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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Risch conflates an idea with its implementation | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Risch conflates an idea with its implementation
Authored by: mrisch on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM EST
That's totally NOT what I said. What I said is that most
software engineers believe that implementation is obvious
once you identify the problem. Coming up with the
idea/problem is NOT always obvious - often, but not always.
Maybe you would all say always, or that it shouldn't matter
(which is what I said we need to think hard about in the
law).

Thus, engineers are so skilled that the solution to the
problem, once framed, is obvious. This means that if there
are gaps in the description, they can easily filled in by
engineers. After all, filling in the gaps to implement the
idea is obvious. And that's all that patent law requires to
satisfy the enablement requirement.

That's what I said. I also mentioned that the better way to
deal with such patents is written description, if there are
gaps, it means that the original inventor didn't really
invent the implementation they are claiming 10 years later -
Lodsys is a great example of this.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

By the way...
Authored by: mrisch on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:04 PM EST
I am willing to concede that not all patents are enabled -
that some might be difficult to implement. But if that's true,
it means that not all patents are obvious. I actually believe
that to be closer to the truth, but after slogging through
more than 1000 comments here, the consensus here seemed to be
that no, there is no such thing as a non-obvious software
patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • By the way... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 17 2012 @ 07:06 AM EST
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 )