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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Hmmm, we should try to be more creative | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hmmm, we should try to be more creative
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
How about starting here: Anything that starts with digital
information and returns digital information as a result, is
not patent eligible subject matter.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So, next stop the Supreme Court, maybe....
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT
As far as I can understand, having been following Groklaw for more years than I
care to remember, the Supreme Court gets to pick and choose which appeals it
wants to consider, so it would seem that they may opt to decline the case. That
would not be ideal, but as the patent wars seem to be rapidly escalating, at
least one case will be heard by the Supremes eventually. It might not be this
one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Someone @ NYT received a nice gift..
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT
The Google bashing scaled up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/technology/widening-
scrutiny-of-googles-smartphone-patents.html?
_r=1&ref=technology

from STEVE LOHR

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can we put a brief together (a crowd sourced brief)?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:44 AM EDT
Can we put a brief together (a crowd sourced brief)?

If so, then how?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How about no patents that rely on a general purpose computer! n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT
stage_v


from under the bridge

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

'Positronic brain' and Data software should be patentable
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
Even though the idea is old, someone should be able to get a patent for the complete software that is necessary to create a positronic brain or Star Trek The Next Generation's Data!

Sure it is a set of algorithms that only exist in a virtual environment, but, applying the Mayo decision, the outcome is clearly greater than the sum of the whole!

[ 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 )