Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Legal Writing 101 - you didn't attend | 758 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Legal Writing 101 - you didn't attend

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT

I'll give it a shot, though I'm very busy. I will have to
make a lot of guesses. I wish he'd answered some of my
questions, like "why two parts?"

I've re-read the article a few times already and I see only
the tiniest of practical differences from existing case law.
On the one hand that's a strength - a court might actually
adopt a test that's consistent with binding precedents. But
on the other hand, the smaller the change, the less good it
does. I don't think his proposed test will do any real
good. Even supposing the Federal Circuit adopts PolR's test,
I believe that software patents will continue to be granted.
Patent applications will just have to mention some physical
result to claim a patentable process or machine. This is
more or less already the case. So I'm not feeling much
urgency in completing this homework. At best it's a
starting point for an article of my own, addressing the
remaining questions the court asked, which PolR ignored
completely.

[ 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 )