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

No | 758 comments | Create New Account

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

Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT

The robot machine doesn't know anything.

If it was invented using an inventive concept that no previous robot had
employed and the functionality was useful, then it fulfils Section 101 as a new
and useful inventive concept.

If you used a previously existing robot for a new use, vis. baking a pie, then
the Supreme Court says it is not a new invention and cannot be patented. Pie
baking, or baking grandma's pie recipe is not a new innovative concept of the
robot machine. That is why I quoted Flook that makes this clear.

The new and useful inventive concept can be realised by a computer running
software and meet the requirements of Section 101. I have no problems with that.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FINALLY! EUREKA! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT

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 )