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: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:46 AM EST
Personally, I'd go with "equivilent to a memory-limited Turing
Machine" as a starting point for a definition of a "general-purpose
computer"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Shield software from litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM EST
Then they will likely lose to competition on the market. Imagine this: If
software patents apply only to "special purpose hardware", while
"general purpose hardware" gets a free pass. Some competitors who have
"software patents" that apply to the devices being sold might find it
convenient to make "general purposed" devices (hence no "software
patent" license obligations) that compete directly with "special
purposed" devices.

At the same time, they could target the companies with deep pockets who make the
"special purposed" devices to get licensing or disrupt competition.
Counter suing with "software patents" would be not possible on the
"general purposed hardware". Of course this is not foolproof even if
"general purpose hardware" is well defined. There are still other type
of patents and whatnots (not to mention that it's unpredictable when things go
to court).

Even so, if it comes down to cross-licensing deals, they could claim they don't
need to license their competitor's "software patents" for their
"general purpose hardware", while their competitor will need to
license their "software patents" for their competitor's "special
purpose hardware".

[ 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 )