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
My solution would take.... | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My solution would take....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 05:51 PM EST

.... probably the lifetimes of several universes.... if it finished that early.

The most basic solution is the proverbial "brute force" method.

However, when people read the subject, they're thinking someone may have stumbled upon a better algorithm instead. After all - why would one "yell from the rooftops" a solution that everyone already knows and was taught in school.

So if one claims a patent, others expect an updated or new invention... if an updated process isn't outlined, then the logical conclusion is that it wasn't defined in sufficient detail. Ergo:

There are functions that are easily specified, but not easily computed.
logically equals:
    It was not specified in sufficient detail!
And if it is argued that it was defined in sufficient detail: then the patent is laying claim to public knowledge! A clear breach of the underlying patent exchange which is supposed to be knowledge disseminated to the public in exchange for the limited monopoly. Instead - it attempts to take from the public under the pretense of somehow giving to.

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 )