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
Evidence of working implementation | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pseudo-code - concur
Authored by: reiisi on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 08:10 AM EST

pseudo-code in an meaningful project is impossible to interpret deterministically without the context of code reviews and other "engineering" and "management" processes that are supposed to accompany software development.

No, I don't think patent examiners should be expected to read a given pseudo-code and determine anything specific about it, without source code to back it up.

(I ranted on this recently.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Evidence of working implementation
Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 10:34 AM EST
Just ditch all this pseudo-code stuff, and ditch the "software
patents" approach.

Tell the USPTO that *A*L*L* patent applications should be accompanied by
evidence of a working implementation. And as the first step in any re-exam or
whatever, that implementation must be examined to definitively determine the
scope of the patent. No implementation, no scope, invalid patent.

That'll then help address the issue of bad patents in general, and help kill off
software patents as a side effect !!! :-)

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )