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
U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 - Goodness me, it's a fail! | 297 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 - Unified Search
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 05:46 PM EST
This patent is so dang broad and generic, I wouldn't be so
certain that Ubuntu is in the clear. Honestly though, when I
read through the patent, I'm immediately reminded of using
GNU find and/or locate on my computer with NFS shares.
That's been done for how many decades?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 - Goodness me, it's a fail!
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 02:59 AM EST
The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information.
However, the techniques have to be applied to searching the information and that can only be done where the information is, i.e. at the variety of locations other than the location of the interface.

The interface cannot access information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. It can only request information and the remote location information servers use the different techniques to provide the information.

The invented machine is impossible to 'make' because the components of the invention cannot be put into the one machine. The totality of the invented machine is defined as existing in different locations and the components are general purpose components not designed to fulfil the invented machine functions.

In this case, the 'interface' is a mobile phone made by the mobile phone manufacturer. The information in the variety of locations is provided by a multiplicity of content providers such as Google. None of these entities make, sell, import or distribute the invention. The invention is only 'made' and 'used' when the user makes the phone communicate with more that one information provider in different locations using a number of different filtering techniques.

This is the same devastating fail as in the Allen v. World patents.

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

[ 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 )