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
Shield software from litigation | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Shield software from litigation
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 11:10 PM EST
No. He's trying to help us get rid of the toxicity
of software patents and all patents that make it
impossible for innovation to continue.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Shield software from litigation
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM EST

I don't know where you get that. We are never going "to get rid of" special purpose hardware.

Anyhow, I just re-read Stallman's proposal, and as I've said previously, I like it. This reading, I paid more attention to the discussion of properly defining a general- purpose computer. That is a tough one, because most dedicated devices, such as you may find in a rubber making machine, are built around a general purpose CPU.

Would the fact that the only program loaded into the ROM is dedicated to making rubber make that a special purpose machine? ie: the fact you cannot program it to do anything else, from outside the black box.

However, you could reprogram it from the inside, by replacing the code in ROM, but you are still very limited to what you can do with it because the I/O through which the program has an effect on the real world will be specific to the task of making rubber. You could repurpose some of that, to some extent, and make, say, a timer out of it or use it as some other industrial controller. May not be very flexible, though. Of course you could just yank out the CPU and start over, making a new machine out of it, and thereby prove that at least the CPU is a general purpose computer, but then it is no longer a rubber making machine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Just the opposite
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 01:14 PM EST
He's saying that in order to be patentable, there has to *be* a special purpose
machine.

Which is to directly counter the idiotic idea surging through the courts that
simply loading software into a PC somehow creates a "new" machine.

[ 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 )