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
Pseudo-code - concur | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pseudo-code
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 08:52 PM EST
It is my understanding that non-working pseudo code would lead to an invalid patent. The invention must be "useful". This is a requirement of patent law. An invention that can't be actually built is not useful.

Also section 112 paragraph (a) of patent law states: (my bold)

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
So unimplementable pseudo-code violates section 112(a) and the patent is invalid.

IANAL by this is how I understand these things would work.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Pseudo-code - concur
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:58 PM EST
I'd like to see working code, complete with build
instructions as to which compiler and libraries to use, and
on which platform said code would execute.

Code doesn't run as claimed, patent is invalid.

(There are no valid software patents in my opinion anyway.
I'm referring to Diamond type patents where the software is a
non-patentable component of a presumably patentable process.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Pseudo-code vs. formal languages
Authored by: nick_battle on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:16 AM EST
There is a mid-point between informal pseudocode and a working program, namely a
formal specification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_specification).

Formal specification languages eliminate the ambiguity of pseudocode, and allow
the pure algorithm to be analysed independently of how it may be implemented in
a programming language. This seems to be precisely what we are looking for
here.

Unfortunately, writing and reading such specifications does require considerable
skill. But then who ever said specifying a patent should be easy? :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Copyright problems
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:53 PM EST
The huge problem with functional code is copyright. Actual code in a patent would probably be covered by copyrighted even after the patent has expired. So that would defeat the purpose of patents. Releasing the code under some license might work but that license cannot conflict with the patent laws.

Also the laws would have to change to address porting between languages. That is, if you patent was just in the C language then the code clauses would not apply to another language like C++.

[ 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 )