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
Really? | 267 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You can't just go to Best Buy and buy a computer to do this
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:33 PM EST
http://www.itworld.com/software/341297/appeals-court-considers-software-
patents

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggg!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 09:01 PM EST
Remember, there is no connection, none at all, between the COMPUTER and the
program.

Here's the proof.

Take the program. DON'T PUT IT IN THE COMPUTER.

Instead, let the computer ask for it, one instruction at a time.

Now, how is this computer doing something different than your
"reconfigured" computer which has the same program "put into the
computer"? They both do exactly the same thing.

But wait a minute! Any modern computer DOESN'T keep the whole program in MEMORY.
It brings in chunks from disk. In fact, it may not even HAVE a disk--it may
bring in those chunks from another computer. But do those computers do anything
different when running your pizzley little bookkeeping program?

NO! The bookkeeping program doesn't know, or care, whether it's all in memory at
once, or partly on a disk, or any of that. It executes exactly the same logical
instructions.

And wait another minute! A modern computer has multiple levels of cache, that
are dynamically loaded when information is fetched from "memory". When
does this computer get "reconfigured", judge? Is it when the first
byte of that program first enters the CPU == but before you answer, how many
programs have the exact same first byte? Is it when the entire program gets
fetched into memory -- but before you answer, remember that the entire program
may never get fetched into memory, and if it is fetched into memory it may not
be all in memory at once! Is the computer "reconfigured" when the
program is loaded into a disk, but before you answer remember that many
computers don't have disks or indeed any other memory capable of holding the
entirety of a large program -- they depend utterly on being able to ask across a
net for any particular bytes as needed.

What's next? A patent for "representing the number 246 on an abacus",
followed by lawsuits against anyone who MIGHT have ever represented that number
on an abacus (because the litigant doesn't even have to have proof that the
victim actually ever used the patent--just that he MIGHT have used it....)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Really?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 12:42 PM EST
But reconfiguring is illegal under the CFAA!

SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE ILLEGAL!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The flow chart
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST
IS ABSTRACT.

It clearly does NOT follow, that what the flowchart describes is not abstract.

Argumentum ad non sequitur ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )