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
Apple and Samsung finally agree on SOMETHING | 45 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic Here
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 05:19 PM EST
Please be sure to keep all posts off topic.

Be sure to use clickable links.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 05:55 PM EST
Please post corrections hear.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:54 AM EST
  • Corrections Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 11:48 AM EST
News Picks Thread
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM EST
URL, please.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 06:24 PM EST

HTML markups posted in plaintext of "Comes v. MS" documents for PJ.

See link above.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple and Samsung finally agree on SOMETHING
Authored by: rocky on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 07:27 PM EST
So I think you'd better give it to them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Squarely in the realm of trade secrets?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:14 AM EST
For instance, Exhibits B and F to the Sheppard Rule 37 Declaration includes product-specific sales, costs of goods sold, expenses, and profits data for all accused products for each month between 2007 and 2011. (Declaration of Hankil Kang (“Kang Decl.”) ¶ 16.) Exhibit C to the Price Rule 37 Declaration synthesizes this data and presents it in a format that those with little accounting or financial experience could use to gain valuable insight into Samsung’s pricing strategies. (Id. ¶ 17.) The exhibits are extremely valuable to Samsung, because the data guide the company’s pricing, distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.
Umm, there are websites around that give the BoM of every new Apple device as soon as it appears. They, or others like them, track all FedEx flights, do exit polls at Apple stores. The numbers are almost a matter of public record. Post facto, which is why Apple is so secretive prior to the appearance of every new product. Is Samsung's data secret simply because the Westerners have not yet penetrated the chaebol, or fathomed the handshake deals that lead to multiple paralell imports via different routes?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to the reporter
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:18 AM EST
Who guessed that Anonymous would be so good at technical reporting?

I suspect it is better than being there, because I cannot imagine capturing all
this content, myself.

Thanks for the time and the reporting expertise.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inventions inna-smartphone
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 03:41 AM EST
System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.

... “separate from a client” and whether the invention required software separate from a client. One issue is over the word “server” in claims...

Judge Koh said “Posner” found that the analyzer server in this patent required separateness.

Judge Koh said.. her tentative thinking is that the action of the processor does not have to be separate from the client.
[T]he judge gave her tentative thinking that the history lists can be but are not required to be shared between/among applications
Apple’s ’414 patent - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices:

Apple suggested no cell phones had dual-core processors until three years after ‘414 patent filed. A PHOSITA [“person who is skilled in the art”] reading would not have thought of using dual-core processors. Samsung countered that the specification referred to many types of electronic devices including computers, some of which did have dual-core Intel processors at the time.
Sorry to have picked on the Apple patents, but they highlight the issue. There is only one patent, here, that might not suffer from the following patent problems.

The first invention is an on-a-computer invention. Is a structure in data an abstract idea? How does one perform an action on an abstract idea? Once the data is on-a-computer (how, exactly did the computer generate that data?) the abstract idea of a person carrying out an abstract algorithm on a perceived pattern or structure of the data becomes a patentable system... or method... a system and a method.

How does a computer user know to use the method? What is the method and what post solution activity occurs as a result of the method? What is a client in a smartphone and what is a server? Might they both be abstract ideas expressed as software? Can they only exist in software?

Patent '414 is only an invention inna-smartphone. On-a-computer it is not an invention because it is the wrong sort of general purpose computer. Is the invention one of such additional utility and innovation, that the software written by one skilled in the art is only stunningly innovative and useful in its function when it is within his skills to make the invention run on a single processor?

Sorry to quote Fonar v. GE once again:
As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. It is well established that what is within the skill of the art need not be disclosed to satisfy the best mode requirement as long as that mode is described. Stating the functions of the best mode software satisfies that description test. We have so held previously and we so hold today.
When Apple say that a PHOSITA would not have thought of using a dual processor at the time of the patent, they are saying that the writing of the software to do this stuff is not the invention, it is just something that software writers do. Servers, clients, computer-generated data and analyzer servers are invented functions for a software journeyman to write the software to carry out.

So, if the invention is not on-a-computer or inna-smartphone, what is the useful thing that the patented functions do and why are these functions new and innovative when the on-a-computer or the inna-smartphone are put to one side as being within the skills of the art?

Do these 'inventions' only make any sense when interpreted by those skilled in the art of writing software to run on-a-computer or inna-smartphone?

Without the phone or the computer, can the functions be any more than abstract ideas?

Is it an invention to decide the time and place that the software writer chooses to execute parts of the software and on which general purpose computer(s) to install it? Are these decisions just what is within the skill of software writers and therefore not patentable subject matter?

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A modest PRoposal on the Software Patent Question/
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 04:07 PM EST
In any patent litigation which requires the plaintiff to explain the patent is
to be considered indefinite. It is a long standing rule of contract construction
that any ambiguous contract is construed against the drafter. Since it is well
accepted and proven that patent drafters purposely draft their language to be as
broad (and incomprehensible) as possible the patent holders should not be able
to benefit from their own deviousness.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ 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 )