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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
I think this is the crux: | 443 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Something just occured to me
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:07 PM EST
The analogies we are using are specialized hardware, not general purpose
hardware.

If I take the software used to control that gearbox, what else could I do with
it? Not much, other than control another gearbox, so there is really no way to
use that software without infringing upon a patent (because you would have to
drive a gearbox, which is covered in the patent).

However, what happens when we are talking about a general purpose machine? What
if, as myNym stated in the other thread, we took gearbox control software and
ran it in a simulator on a general purpose computer? Would this infringe the
patent?

See, it's hard to visualize, because the example is so specialized, so a
simulator is the best I can come up with.

Let me try another one:

Say I have a video capture solution, with a breakout box that connects via usb
and uses a new method of compressing video to speed up transfer. I take out a
patent on the software used in the bundled software on the computer, the
software run by the microcontroller in the breakout box, and the breakout box
itself.

If someone else takes similar microcontroller software and uses it in a computer
program to compress large amounts of binary data(say from a database), are they
infringing. Technically, the software is performing the same kind of
compression, but they did not use the breakout box, nor did they use the bundled
software.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think this is the crux:
Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:30 PM EST
"even the special purpose computer assembly would be the
patent equivalent of a standard nut or bolt"

Standard nut and bolt usage in a machine that is patentable
does not mean the nut and bolt are patented by the machine
patent.

Software usage in a machine that is patentable does not mean
that the software is patented by the machine patent.

The standard nuts and bolts are prior art, no new protection
on them, regardless of how they are used.

The software is math, and cannot be patented regardless of
how it is used.

I'm not saying that's how courts have ruled, I'm saying
that's how courts _should_ rule.

[ 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 )