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

You are confusing one hopelessly confused court with a higher misinformed one! | 758 comments | Create New Account

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

You are confusing one hopelessly confused court with a higher misinformed one!

Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT

This was a decision in 2011 by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.

It was the Supreme Court that confirmed in 2007 (Microsoft v. AT&T) that a
new machine was made by installing the software. I think that can be put down to
a long line of misinformation, as reported previously by PolR.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also seemed to be repeating the
misinformation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the Alappat
decision of 1994.

The one bit of good news is that the early patents for knitting machines can now
be renewed for machines that can do really complicated knitting.

The legal test will be to get grandma to knit the same complicated pattern and
to measure the proportion of dropped stitches and stitches in error.

The claim construction of the term 'really complicated' will, of course, be
carried out by a judge who cannot knit.

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are confusing one hopelessly confused court with a higher misinformed one! - Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- Yes... sorry... - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 06:40 AM 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 )