decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
not that the machine is not changed ... but not a new machine. | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Another Lawyer is born...
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT
By your argument no computer can execute an entire program, therefore no
software patent is ever infringed because no machine can execute all the steps
in the patent.

Instructions are executed billions of times per second. Each instruction changes
the computer somehow. The clock ticks, some bits is changes and the count of
seconds on the screen is incremented. I type on the keyboard, a new machine is
made at each keystroke.

None of these computers infringe on the patent. They don't last long enough to
infringe.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

not that the machine is not changed ... but not a new machine.
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT
If you move the gearshift in the car/truck, the machine
has changed, but it is NOT a new machine. If I display
new images on a display, the display has changed, but it
is NOT a new machine. The fact that there are changes
are part of the design of the machine. These changes are
what make the machine useful. These changes do NOT make
it a new machine.

I daresay you would be hard pressed to find a useful
machine that did NOT undergo some changes as part and
parcel of it being useful. But by your crazy reasoning
every change in the machine makes it a new machine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Another Lawyer is born...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT
"There is a new icon on the display" is equivilent to: "Oh look,
my car is
currently in fourth"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )