| IANAL, so my reading of these cases is subject to possible errors - but if you
really think I'm wrong, then please explain why.
The point at issue was
the link between software and machine in the UK. E.O.S.
's funny. I
didn't see that point. I saw,
I think the problem with that is a
lot* of the things Apple is suing over are not illegal in this country. Software
patents, for example.
Are the FRAND patents Motorola are suing over valid
here?
* And arguably not illegal in the USA either, as Apple are finding to
their cost. It's just taking longer in court.
I'm guessing this
poster is from the UK. He/she is talking about software patents being one of
the things that Apple is suing over. Also that these software patents aren't
illegal in the USA either, which implies that the poster believes that they
aren't (possibly arguably) illegal in the UK.
Then mentions FRAND patents
that Motorola have. I've had a quick look for these patents but haven't yet
found them. I don't know what these patents say so I don't know the answer to
this question.
And then I saw, And we don't have software
patents in the US sense (yet).
So I'm getting the impression that
this poster is from the UK. Not sure exactly what "software patents in the US
sense" means though.
If you read the Re Halliburton case (not Halliburton v
Smith), Birss clearly understands that the "invention" is software, and nothing
but software, which is directed at running a simulation and then produces output
(a drill bit design) probably to a printer, but also possibly to a screen, and
nothing more. There is no connection to a machine, other than the computer that
runs the simulation (Birss even points out that the patent doesn't even mention
that this simulation is run on a computer).
In Symbian, the patent on the
(software) improvements to the machine, which made the machine faster, were
affirmed as being patentable. By my inexact reading, this is basically an
improvement to the Symbian OS.
Judge Floyd in HTC v Apple said that
3 of Apple's patents (on slide-to-unlock, photo management, sending SMS in
different alphabets) were not invalid as excluded subject matter (the 4th patent
about multi-touch was ruled as invalid).
Just in what sense are these
patents not "software patents in the US sense"?
I suspect your use of
"E.O.S" means you think this is the end of the subject and that you'll not come
back to explain. Probably because you can't back your argument up with any
sense.
Please correct me. I'll happily admit being wrong if I am
wrong.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
