Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

So to simplify | 364 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

So to simplify

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 12:14 PM EST

The physical state of what we abstractly interpret as software is an interpretation of a binary (2) state of one of:

electrical charge - tansistor, not full = zero, full = 1
chemical charge - a battery has a charge, or it does not
magnetic presence - or not
physical pit - or not such as a given point on an audio cd

Ergo: the physical state is one of a very finite set and the interpretation of the pattern of said state in a particular flow is left up to humans to abstractly define as "software"!

So for someone to claim the abstract pattern of 001 is different from the abstract pattern of 100 for purposes of patentability is the equivalent of patenting the flow of language.

The dog ran up the road is patenable - in that vein of argument - as

The road flowed by the stream Since the challenge is to prove a single physical existence of software to prove software is not abstract: Proof of failure.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No, absolutely not! - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 04:05 AM EST
- My False? I haven't used the word false anywhere - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 10:05 AM EST

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 )