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

In 25 words or less, what is the "printed matter doctrine"? | 335 comments | Create New Account

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

In 25 words or less, what is the "printed matter doctrine"?

Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 06:43 PM EDT

The printed matter doctrine is not part of copyright law. It belongs to patent
law. It says that in most circumstances (there are exceptions) the printed
matter cannot be used to distinguish an invention over the prior art.

For example articles of manufacture are patentable. If someone invents a new
type of books, say the cover binding is new, then he can patent it as a an
article of manufacture. But suppose someone tries to patent a new
"improved" book that contains a brand new novel. This is when the
printed matter doctrine kicks in. This "improvement" is not patentable
because the novel is printed matter and this doesn't distinguish over the prior
art. For patent purposes this is the same old book.

Don't work too hard in making a new version. One has already been written and it
is under review by PJ. We had to move fast because of the deadline.

But if you see points which haven't been reported yet, don't be afraid to
mention them. There is still time to make adjustments.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I just finished my work, too, and I mailed it to PJ - Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 08:03 PM EDT

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 )