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
I had the same reaction. | 335 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I had the same reaction.
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Suggest the topic and explain. Wait for the discussion (if ever) to convince
them that they are terribly wrong.

Bringing up a topic with only one acceptable answer sort of obviates the need
for the discussion.


---
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 | Parent | # ]

Suggested topic 3
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 11:35 PM EDT
The part you have removed is the refutation of the doctrine that programing a
computer makes a machine different from the unprogrammed computer.

This part pulls the carpet from under the main legal theory that makes software
patentable. It may be seem repetitious and abstract from a technical
perspective, but from a legal perspective this is the heart of the issue.

The part you have omitted is not a repetition. It is addressing a very important
legal point.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

plagued with what developers view as
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 09:27 PM EDT

the current interpretation of patent law is plagued with what developers view as erroneous conceptions of how computers work.

How 'bout...

the current interpretation of patent law is plagued with erroneous conceptions of how computers work.

The Truth is independent of the viewer in such matters. The views of lawyers or developers is irrelevant. Truth, when it is about the Natural World, is immutable, and does not change to suit the whims of the viewer.

[ 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 )