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
how to "enhance" the quality of software patents | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
how to "enhance" the quality of software patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:09 AM EST
As long as they do this for gcc, that might work.

But if their other policies are anything to go by, all that would do is make
microsoft have the only "patent-safe" compiler.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The USPTO are very clear.
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:32 AM EST
Software patents are 'patents that are particularly relevant to the software
community'. '[T]he elements of software are often defined using functional
language. [I]t is permissible to use functional language in patent claims...'.

So the invention that is patented is one 'defined using functional language'
(aka functions) and any software that is implemented to realise the functional
language definition (aka functions) is infringing.

What the USPTO overtly ignores is that functional language (aka functions) is
not statutory subject matter according to ยง 101.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

rebalance the software patent game
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:07 PM EST
Maybe if they balanced things out.

Since if you knowingly infringe it is 3x damages, make it repay 3x settlements
when your patent is invalidated.

Require a bond to cover the costs when you assert the patent.

Pay a reward to the person who finds prior art which contributes to invalidating
a patent.



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How's this for a definition
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:21 PM EST

Software = instructions provided to the device so the device follows a process of computation.

Finger = instructions provided to the abacus so the abacus follows a process of computation.

To patent "software as applied to a computer" is exactly identical to patenting "fingers as applied to an abacus".

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 )