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
What have you shown? | 758 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What have you shown?
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:26 AM EDT
> You haven't described how to write a program for any particular purpose

Why should I show that? This is not relevant to the topic of this article.

Also I don't see how Shannon theory of information is relevant to the topic of
this article. You have not explained the connection.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What have you shown?
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Reading your comment once again, i think I should answer this paragraph.
But it takes a lot of engineering and invention to find practical, near-optimal digital codes for transmission of information, particularly over many real-world channels. Have you ever had a digital cell phone call dropped? Have you ever tried to pick up a DTV signal over the air without signal drops or pixelation? Disregarding novelty and obviousness (which are separate questions), are you prepared to say that practical solutions to these problems do not qualify as patentable subject matter?
My answer is it depends on what is claimed. Does the patent claim the contents of what is being transmitted? Or does it claim a device for transmitting contents while leaving the contents out of the patent?

This is a situation like a patent on a printing press. A new printing press is patentable but the printed contents is not. Similarly if an engineer invents a device for moving symbols from one place to another this device is patentable as long as he doesn't patent the symbols being transmitted.

There is also the situation when the solution involves a computation component. The computation itself is mathematical contents. So the claim on your hypothetical communication device should include non symbolic elements sufficient to distinguish it from a claim on the computation. This is like the Diehr rubber curing case which includes the step of curing the rubber. Remove this step and it becomes an unpatentable claim on a computation based on the Arrhenius equation.

I believe practical utility does not distinguish contents from patentable invention. For example, a phone book is useful. A video of a leaking underwater oil well is useful. There is a lot of work in obtaining these contents. It is not easy to collect the data and ensuring it is correct. What distinguish these situations from an algorithm for the optimal codes to be transmitted over a channel? I say the claim must include a distinguishing element and this element can't be utility.

[ 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 )