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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Ah, but... | 115 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ah, but...
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:28 PM EST
Good point.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ah, but...
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:37 PM EST

Well, it seems to me that the CAFC seem totally muddled with regard to subject matter. As far as I know, the validity of Beauregard claims has not been tested in court. (In Re Beauregard became moot at the CAFC before trial because the PTO withdrew their objection to patent-eligibility.)

Beauregard claims are illogical. If one is claiming a manufacture, then surely the claimed properties should be claimed as intrinsic properties of the manufacture. Whereas how a computer reads a computer-readable medium depends on all sorts of conventions and properties like what operating system is running, whether the stuff read off the computer-readable medium is machine code, byte code, executable script of whatever.

Similarly, consider the CAFC hangups in CLS v. Alice. Judge Moore in particular is insistent that claims that superficially appear to be drawn to a machine (involving computing devices communicating over networks) obviously are drawn to a machine, and thus are without doubt patentable under 101. But how can a machine manufacture irrevocable time-invariant obligations. Surely claim limitations on what purports to be a machine should be limitations on physical operation, outputs and inputs that affect their physical properties. But the fact that a value stored on a data-storage medium is an obligation, is irrevocable, is time-invariant, etc. surely concerns how people, legal systems etc. interpret the output of the machine, limit how the machine is to be used, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the machine considered as a device in the physical world. (This distinguishes Alappat from later horrors: at least the smoother-seeming anti-aliased curve on the oscilloscope display was a manifestation of the physical quality of the output. Consider a digital camera. Should improvements to the camera that come about through improvements to the digital image-processing operation be patentable improvements in the art of making cameras?)

[ 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 )