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
WHAT software patents? | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
History says otherwise
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST
By your theory, general-purpose personal computers would
never drive specialized word processors out of the
marketplace.

And yet they did.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"business/legal" vs "technical"
Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 02:02 PM EST
What really frustrates me is this: most so-called "software patents"
don't actually cover a software implementation. They cover the basic idea and
ALL implementations, and sometimes even close approximations, of that idea.

Hardware patents generally cover ONE implementation of an idea.

While I fully grok the whole "software is math" thing, it really
doesn't matter if the software patents the USPTO is granting don't even meet the
same requirements for being patented that other patents do.

As I've said before: if hardware patents followed the same logic, we would have
a "method for transporting a human via four wheels", and the patent
holder could go after automobile manufacturers as well as little red wagons and
roller skates. They all fall within that broad scope.

---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

WHAT software patents?
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM EST
That separated hardware from software?

I think it was legal anti-trust stuff that separated it - IBM was forced to stop
bundling.

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )