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
Too simple too. | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I wouldn't draw the line there
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST

The rest of what you say I agree with (or at least it rings true to me).

The part about:

Just like nuts and bolts were prior art but were patentable AS PART of the plant, so was the software.
I don't think it should extend even that far. Consider Aibo, the robot dog. Let's say one can patent the software as part of the whole. This raises the interesting question:
    Does someone else now avoid infringement because they reverse-engineered and built the exact same robotic dog (the invention) but used different software?
I simply don't think software should factor into the equation at all. If someone builds the exact same invention (the exact robotic dog) - it doesn't matter what software they apply, even if they apply no software: they infringe the patent on the physical.

If someone purchases the robotic dog from Sony - then applies their own software - they do not infringe on any patents.

If someone takes the software out of Aibo, and applies it to another robot - they do not infringe on any patents. They could infringe copyright of course - but patents should simply not be part of that equation. And where patents apply - since software is always abstract - software should never be covered, even as "part of a whole". I know I disagree (possibly) with the Supreme's on this point.

To allow it to be patentable at all is to allow patenting of the abstract. And if you're going to allow patenting of any abstract - any argument you supply can apply to any form of abstract. Example:

    E=MC2 is not patentable subject matter except when applied to a calculator!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Too simple too.
Authored by: PolR on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 05:42 PM EST
> If you can logically prove something is true or correct,
> then it is abstract. If you observe that works, then it is
> physical.

Lawyers will say they don't patent the abstract algorithm in the mind. They
patent the movement of electrons in the circuit. You can't infringe this kind of
patent just by thinking how the algorithm work in your mind.

I am just playing the devil's advocate to show the difficulty we must
confront.

[ 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 )