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
NO! We need a legal definition of software | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
NO! We need a legal definition of software
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 09:07 AM EST
Software is a number of different mathematical languages
that are represented by symbols

These languages are read by a computer in the same way as a
human reads a book, in order for the computer to understand
the instructions they are translated by other programs into
simpler instructions if required

The computer as it reads these simple instructions performs
one or more limited actions that are fixed and unchangeable
as they are hard coded into the processor at time of
manufacture (the CPU instruction set), this is similar to a
human reading a book and generating imaginary scenes in
their brain except the instructions in a cpu are more
limited.

So a simple way to exclude patents on software would be to
say "patents are excluded on anything that is processed by a
CPU.



---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • s/CPU/ALU/ - Authored by: Wol on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 03:45 PM EST
NO! We need a legal definition of software
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 01:40 PM EST
> As Tkilgore's excellent report observed there are fine upstanding
citizens in positions of power and influence who are begging
for an explanation of the boundary between hardware and software.

What exactly does the very interesting phrase "begging for an
explanation" mean? We could spend all of next week parsing that for finer
and finer distinctions, could we not?

[ 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 )