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
all Pseudo-code ... | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pseudo-code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 09:44 PM EST
Mayhap add the requirement that a copy of WORKING, COMPILABLE
SOURCE code implementing the software parts of a patent
accompany the application. since it's digits, it doesn't
take physical storage space (the original reason for
abandoning the requirement for a working model of a patent).

That reference implementation must be published as part of
the patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Pseudo-code - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:09 PM EST
    • Pseudo-code - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:50 AM EST
  • Pseudo-code - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:51 AM EST
  • Pseudo-code - Authored by: om1er on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 07:19 AM EST
Pseudo-code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 09:54 PM EST

Thank you for the reference to 112 (3). The point I was trying to make was that pseudo-code may not accurately disclose the invention. It simply discloses what the troll wants to claim the invention does. I maintain that all pseudo-code is non-working. It is simply a means of communicating what someone wants the actual code to do.

Being a level of abstraction away from the invention it is subject to abuse by not actually disclosing what the real code does and it may still not disclose anything useful.

I have reviewed pseudo-code written by analysts from the business side as well as pseudo-code written by analysts from the development side. Using the pseudo-code written by a developer usually results in real code closely matching the pseudo-code. Not so much for pseudo-code written by the business side.

In the context of patten law I don't see pseudo-code as being significantly better than the legal descriptions we have today. Trolls will start using vague descriptions in business type pseudo-code to obtain pattens that are no better than what we have today.

IANAL

cc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If only 112(a) was enforced we would not have much problem
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 10:32 PM EST
Look at what is accepted in existing software patents and how much time and
money is wasted in the courts because there is no way of knowing what the claims
actually describe. As far as I can tell 112(a) is essentially ignored when it
comes to software patent fights. It's tailors fighting over the design patents
for the Emperor's clothes - None of them will want to try to win the battle by
pointing out that there is nothing there.

If 112(a) is so eviscerated for software patents now and the solution is to
require source code, then it needs to be working source code. Proper pseudo code
is the same as working code but you don't know that it is proper until you
actually try to translate it to a real language and run it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

all Pseudo-code ...
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:53 PM EST
All pseudocode is non-working. That's what the "pseudo" means.

How to be a Millionaire and never pay taxes() :
Get Million Dollars;
Don't pay taxes;
End;

Pseudocode is intended to disclose structure, not implementation. It is the very
thing we allege to dislike in Section A. It is (usully) a description of
function without algorithm. Some people (mistakenly) nearly-code (my own coinage
of phrase) when pseudocoding by more or less dropping the punctuation, but this
is not the norm nor the purpose.

Pseudocoding has largely evolved into (e.g. been replaced by) data flow diagrams
and structural diagrams for the very reason that the archetypal pseudo code is
not reasonably informative in most cases.

The internet meeme with step N being "???" and step N+1 being
"profit!" is basically pseudocode with the "magic happens
here" verb that most pseduocode is plagued with.

For example "get data; sort data; find best fit; done" had lots of
magic in the third step.

In short everything _but_ actual execution-ready code is capable of hiding
unbounded vagueness. This includes all pseudocode and pseudocode-alikes such as
UML.

The patent office used to require a working example of the invention. I think
they stopped because they had no place to put it all. But in software terms,
there is no substitute for a working invention because any "natural
language" (e.g. English etc) verb is potentially NP incomplete.

[ 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 )