Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Especially as it's the inventor's invention that the Constitution wants to protect | 152 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Trying to determine definitions

Authored by: JamesK on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:41 AM EST

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." ;-)

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Trying to determine definitions

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:27 PM EST

How do you decide which words need to be defined? I have a few patents under my
belt but I wouldn't if I had to provide definitions for words like
"one" or "plurality" or "the".

The words are meant to be obvious to those skilled in the art, not to a monkey
who doesn't understand English :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Especially as it's the inventor's invention that the Constitution wants to protect

Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 03:07 AM EST

A patent lawyer making the patent definition of the inventor's invention much
broader than the actual invention, has no part in the Constitution's stated aim.

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

[ 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 )