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
There is? | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
There is?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM EST
But all the building blocks of a lot of hardware inventions might not be
patented/able in their own right but when combined together in a certain way
then patent protection for that way (of combining them) may be right.

I've no qualms about the bits and pieces of software /TOGETHER/ being patented
as long as it's not the vague Input → output description that is
patented, but the way the bits and pieces are put together.

If I can put together the building blocks of software /in a different way/ to
your patent, then I should be allowed to do so; currently with software patents,
I can't.

Or to put it another way, current software patents patent a block box with
inputs and output specified, but rarely any detail of the contents of the black
box.

Software patents only make sense if they define the contents of the black box so
that anyone can put together /exactly/ the black box of the invention. If I can
put together another black box, the contents of which are different to the
patented black box but which takes the same inputs and creates the same output,
then I should not be in breach of your patent.

[ 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 )