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
Because the General Purpose Computer doesn't have that particular hardware ray tracer? | 138 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yea - at the moment that appears how SCOTUS sees it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 05:26 PM EST

But that's not how a lot of software patent attorney's or the Federal Circuit Judges see it.

And that's exactly my point:

    Your definition, as it stands, does not eliminate the general purpose computer from the equation.
Therein lies the problem with treating the abstract as the physical:
    Because you have to twist logic in order to treat the abstract (which is not supposed to be patentable subject matter) as the physical: the same twisted logic can equally, logically be applied to any software/hardware combination including the general purpose computer.
I wait patiently for the day when the Supremes realize software does not exist in physical form and never will.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Because the General Purpose Computer doesn't have that particular hardware ray tracer?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 08:01 PM EST
So if i took the algorithm and re wrote it to work with say a standard graphics
card cuda api, if possible, i would then be using a general purpose device
within a general purpose computer running my tweeked algorithms to achieve real
time ray tracing. But in such a scenario, could i not be seen to be infringing
on the patent even though i am not using the 'patented' ray tracing hardware
itself (presumably some specialist ASIC on a board)?

And this is the crux of what confuses me. SCOTUS seems to state that algorithms
aren't patentable subject matter but there is no clear direction as to when a
patentable machine is just that, a physical embodiment of the patented
application (the document filed with the USTPO). All this is compounded by
patent documents that provide little information to those skilled in the art
allowing them to implement the patented discovery once the monopoly period
expires. Not much of a fair social bargain in my view!

And that which previously required specialist hardware that few could afford and
likely resulted in a many commercial non starts due to product pricing issues
would at some later time be possible by some kid in a garage using powerful
general purpose computers and lots of maths! So it seems to me that many
patented developments using software are only possible because of the
development of the general purpose computing hardware and it's ability to
process data very quickly allowing one to do something in real time that
previously took years via paper, pen and ones mind (or very costly specialized
hardware).

So it seems that the best moral fit for protecting ones software development
lies with copyright law but that does not provide the teeth desired by the many.


To me patents just seem the wrong method to protect software and having many
companies asking for something that is fundamentally wrong does not make it
right.

I guess greed has no bounds. And power and greed make great bedfellows.

[ 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 )