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
Thoughts in the brain have a physical form. | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And they are wrong, and we need to convince them of that. (n/t)
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:50 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thoughts in the brain have a physical form.
Authored by: reiisi on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 07:46 AM EST
Setting aside the question of whether there is something besides the physical
brain to the human intellect, we are pretty confident that the pattern networks
in the brain imply some physical representation of our thoughts.

The issue is in the general purpose nature of the modern computer. General
purpose processing implies a complexity that exceeds the patentably mechanical.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How does "math in the mind" not fit your definition?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 09:54 AM EST

As reiisi indicates:

    The grey matter, the dendrites, the neurons, all these have physical form just like the motherboard, the bus and the microchip.
In both cases of the brain and the computer, they execute via electricity!

    So please explain how "math in the brain" is different from "algorithm in the computer"!
As I said:
    Only when you suspend reality and attempt to argue the abstract is physical do you start to run into the problems!
And when you do that, you also:
    Make all abstract into the physical!
So how does that reconcile with the Supreme's stating that abstract concepts such as math are not patentable subject matter? Yes: the Federal Circuit is buying the arguments of the fast talking Lawyers - but that doesn't alter the reality they are doing nothing more then:
    Attempting to somehow explain why the abstract should be treated as physical!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Definition of the abstract: Subject to proof positive
Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 11:11 AM EST
If you can logically prove something is true or correct, then it is abstract. If
you observe that works, then it is physical.

I know we have our differences on whether Science is part of Maths or not, but
the distinction is simple to someone ordinarily skilled in the art of
Philosophy.

Pretty much ALL inventions fall into both the abstract and the physical, the
question is where to draw the line. Diehr actually does quite a good job.

If you examine the source code and run it in your head you can (in principle)
prove it is correct. This is clearly abstract. The software - or chemical
process or any other invention - is here clearly specified in the abstract and
cannot be patented.

Now let's put the software on a computer (or chemistry in a plant). This is
where debugging etc comes in, the science, observing whether it actually
achieves anything. This is where it could become tricky, but as far as software
goes it's pretty obvious. Putting a non-patentable abstract piece of software
onto a general purpose computer may make a new patentable idea, but what is
there to patent? NOTHING! The computer is already patented and you can't patent
the software.

This is the point of Diehr - the rubber curing plant was a *NEW* machine and
thus patentable. Just like nuts and bolts were prior art but were patentable AS
PART of the plant, so was the software. Or like a chemical plant designed to do
my hypothetical chemistry.

Anything susceptible to logical proof cannot be patented in its own right. It
can only be patented as a component of a NEW whole.

Oh - and as another example of why functions shouldn't be patented ... lets
patent the function "f( n CxHy + nn O2 ) => nCO2 + y/2 H2O"

Whoops - I've just patented the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, gas
central heating, etc etc etc! Nice little money earner that !!!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The computer is *in the prior art*....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2013 @ 06:38 PM EST
....adding something abstract to something concrete in the prior art gives you
something which is not abstract, but which is also not patentable.

The computer is in the prior art and is sold for the express purpose of running
all possible abstract algorithms. Adding a new abstract algorithm to the
prior-art computer is an illegal attempt to patent the concrete item which was
invented by Intel or Dell or who-ever, and an attempt to patent an *intended*
use of that item.

[ 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 )