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'd say: Fail | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'd say: Fail
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 12:54 PM EST

For purposes of 1 - A fail:

    The fact that another machine must be built to interpret the flow - as defined by the Human who interprets it - is still abstract.
The representation is physical - the Rom and it's structure. But the fact you have to use the word "interpretation" inherently speaks to abstract:
    The action of explaining the meaning of something: "the interpretation of a story".
Without the explanation/interpretation the flow is meaningless. This is no different from someone who has never studied Egyptian hieroglyphs trying to read them.

The genius lies in the fact humans figured out a way to build a device that can be used to interpret our abstract ideas and process the information: The computer!

Remember, "information" is also abstract!

And no one is arguing the computer is not patentable subject matter.


For the purposes of 2: A Fail

The specific purpose machine which is hard-wired can not be changed by electronic signal and therefore is immune to the abstract concept of software!

The Supremes have made it quite clear in my humble, non-legal opinion:

    Abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter
Software is abstract and will exist physically. Your example of the physical does not alter that.

The physical may very well be built to process a specific flow of information in a specific way - but then the physical inventions uses are extraordinarily limited. When you patent it:

    You patent the Device
If you patent the software equivalent, you are no longer patenting the device, you are patenting the concept of what the device does.

The underlying exchange patents were supposed to provide is:

    Knowledge of the abstract concepts inherent in an invention in exchange for a limited monopoly on said invention
By patenting the knowledge, instead of the device you are breaking the underlying exchange. I can fully understand why abstract concepts were decided non-patentable subject matter:
    Knowledge of an idea belongs to all and is not limited to the few!
I believe the Supremes said something very close to that in Mayo vs Prometheus.

RAS

[ 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 )