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
Being complex does not make it patentable | 267 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Being complex does not make it patentable
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:46 PM EST
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a patent.
(after Clarke)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Being complex does not make it patentable
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 07:52 PM EST
I wasn't aware of the Seldon patent and it's fascinating reading but after all the legal bruhaha of the early 1900's, the Seldon patent was found to be valid only for an automobile driven by a Brayton-type engine of the specific type described in the patent, which in effect cut the patent off at the knees.

As such, i still have the view that there was never an all encompassing patent for the concept of the motorized vehicle itself and i feel my original statement was correct. So unless you have some other referenced patent which will change my view, i'll stick with the statement i made :)

And it's odd how some things never change. Courts make big mistakes which take years to sort out. In this Seldon case, had the correct decision been made at the beginning, Seldon may not have extorted so much cash from the industry...

And in some ways the Seldon patent and his attempt to lock up a complete industry is reminiscent of today's mobile phone legal battles where Apple views rounded corners and slide to unlock as the cornerstone of smart phones. Maybe Apple should consider the quote "Probably nothing so well advertised the Ford car and the Ford Motor Company as did this suit," Henry Ford said in his 1923 autobiography My Life and Work, written with Samuel Crowther (found towards the bottom of the page in referenced link above). It seems Apple may be giving Android and Samsung a big publicity kick :)

[ 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 )