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

Sad - fight a monopoly by creating an artificial monopoly | 136 comments | Create New Account

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

Can't imagine why he expected anything else

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 24 2013 @ 06:09 PM EST

When the Supreme's make it quite clear that abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter...

...

... and as a result, you aim to take something that is abstract (software doesn't exist in physical form) and use words to make it appear physical...

...

... it's really no surprise a big mess is the end result.

One can only make the abstract exist physically via deception.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sad - fight a monopoly by creating an artificial monopoly

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 24 2013 @ 06:19 PM EST

We were trying to sell out software, but selling against free software is very difficult. That's the reason I tried to get a patent.

So because they couldn't figure out a business model handling just software - they decided an artificial monopoly was the answer.

But all previous patents had been for physical products - not for an abstract system of doing things to a generalised machine.

Bingo: the recognition of the first breach of getting the abstract patented even though abstract is not supposed to be patentable subject matter.

He also says that with his help, ADR helped to create the independent software industry by going to the US Department of Justice, which at the time was looking at antitrust action against IBM.

And that would have been the appropriate way to get the existing monopoly broken - not by creating the artificial monopoly to match.

Hopefully it will get straightened out over time.

I agree: My biggest hope is for the Supreme's to realize software is abstract and will never be anything but thereby concluding software is not patent eligible subject matter.

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 )