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
News Picks Threads | 131 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 06:41 PM EST
Title: Kerection -> Correction

Comment: Anything else needed to identify/amplify the
correction

---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered John Doe^W^WLinux user #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 08:25 PM EST
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your
comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.

Hint: Use Preview to check that your links are ok. Avoid a Geeklog
"feature" that posts long links broken by inserting line breaks in the
URL at punctuation points such as
<a href="http://www.example.com/xyzblahblah_
blahblah/
abcblahblah/defblahblah?
abcblahblah
.html">text</a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 08:26 PM EST
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcripts here
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 08:27 PM EST
Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with full HTML markup but posted in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can copy and paste it

See the Comes Tracking Page to find and claim PDF files that still need to be transcribed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In case of doubt, this is a Software Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 09:36 PM EST
The encoder or decoder can be a processor, [...] (ASIC), [...] (FPGA), [...] (CO- DEC), [...] (DSP), or some other electronic device that is capable of encoding the stream of pictures. [emphasis added]
I'm not sure why they mentioned hardware at all, they've covered all bases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Silver lining?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 09:58 PM EST
So a software patent must disclose an algorithm? Does that not invalidate the
vast majority of software patents that are currently in existence? If this
stands up on appeal (hopefully to the supreme court), this would be a very very
good thing for the industry as a whole. Or am I reading this wrong?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Claims, not patent invalidated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 02:13 AM EST
Wonder how many reports get that right?

Law is tough. Too bad more journalists weren't also lawyers.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps with enough actual algorithms disclosed...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 12:09 PM EST

... the Judiciary will finally realize software is nothing but abstract.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's patents OK, Motorola's not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 03:00 PM EST
How come Microsoft's ex-FAT patents are OK, but Motorola's aren't?

Please note that I'm not questioning the courts, but I'm wondering how come
Microsoft and Apple seem to be getting off easily on using others' patents while
Motorola and Samsung are getting the hard end of the stick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Robart in Seattle Grants Microsoft's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ~pj Updated
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:33 PM EST

I think Motorola got shafted here. Although I entirely agree with Groklaw's stand on software patents, means plus function claims are common, and Motorola's are no worse than anybody else's.

The judge said...

"encoding and decoding are entirely distinct functions. Thus, a portion of the specification related to encoding is in no way relevant to decoding, and thus an algorithm for encoding cannot be said to be 'clearly linked' to a decoding function."

The judge is dead wrong here. If "one skilled in the art" is given the specification for one side of the codec, he can develop the other. The fact that the MPEG-1 standard does not include a precise specification for an MP3 encoder has in no way hindered the development of a myriad of original encoders. I know, because I developed one myself. Give me a specification for an encoder, and I'll make you a decoder. Give me a spec for a decoder, and I'll make you an encoder.

However, overall, the judge is right on when he says...

Although the specification describes how one of skill in the art would ascertain what blocks to consider when decoding, the specification provides no guidance as to how one of ordinary skill would actually decode the considered blocks. ... Simply put, this amounts to an unbounded claim encompassing all means for performing the decoding function.

The judge is wise. I agree entirely with that conclusion. (And even if an algorithm was included, would code developed from it have the required level of performance? That is the key in codec development - getting a practical level of performance, beyond simply decoding.)

However, how many software patents are out there that would fail Judge Robart's approval? There must be thousands! Maybe even the mp3 patents held by Fraunhoffer. They will come down on you no matter how you implement an mp3 codec. Fraunhoffer claims all means of encoding and decoding, contrary to the judge's demand. According to Wikipedia...

In September 1998, the Fraunhofer Institute sent a letter to several developers of MP3 software stating that a license was required to "distribute and/or sell decoders and/or encoders". The letter claimed that unlicensed products "infringe the patent rights of Fraunhofer and Thomson. To make, sell and/or distribute products using the [MPEG Layer-3] standard and thus our patents, you need to obtain a license under these patents from us.

Does this mean Fraunhoffer's patent and all the others will be struck down overnight now? That would be such a wonderful outcome if that happened. However, I think this is only going to affect Motorola, and that is patently unfair.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )