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
In my humble opinion: software patents are based on nonsense and should fail | 661 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT

No. The idea of a patent is to cover a way of accomplishing a task. So I don't, for instance, patent smelting iron into steel, I patent a way of smelting iron. What the ruling says is that this patent goes beyond covering just a way of doing something, it tries to cover all ways of doing something. And that's not permitted. You can get a monopoly on how to do something, but not a monopoly on doing that something.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In my humble opinion: software patents are based on nonsense and should fail
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT

The Supremes have made their position quite clear:

    Abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter!
Software = Abstract therefore Software is not patentable subject matter.

However, reality is very different so it's altogether possible both of our opinions are (or will be) wrong.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Try reading first
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 06:25 PM EDT
The flaw in your flaw is that "blocking the world from using this very
particular technique" as you inaptly describe it, is not why the patent was
denied.

The patent was denied because it included no patentable invention. Blocking the
technique was merely a noted side effect of improperly granting such a patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • You are mistaken - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:06 AM EDT
Here is the flaw in the logic of the ruling
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT
{
NO! It wouldn't. Everyone can still use the old technique of rounding the result
instead of the operands.
}

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, rounding before calculation is done by
anyone using a slide rule. With a slip stick, you are limited to about 3
digits, when you start, when you're done and at every step of the calculation.

Oh, I forgot, this is one of those special "with a computer" cases.
;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ 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 )