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
Groklaw's Response to the USPTO's Request for Suggested Topics for Future Discussion & A Supplement ~pj | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Groklaw's Response to the USPTO's Request for Suggested Topics for Future Discussion & A Supplement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT

Thanks for this.

Footnote 169 clarifies the departure from Peirce's nomenclature.

Footnote 171 resolves my confusion as to why a 'referent' is said to be a physical artifact, while Peirce's 'object' may be both material and immaterial.

Page 1435 discusses the distinction between signs which are icons and signs which are indexes (indices).

Page 1441 concludes that the functioning of a computer model as an icon or index is irrelevant to patent eligibility analysis.

Although the author suggests that patent eligibility is invariant to whether a computer model functions as an icon (or index), the author later on suggests that the patentability of iconic computer models should be treated as suspect at best:

The spinner-machine is a model of a real-world system in the exact same way that the iconic programmed computer that inversely correlates two variables can function as a model of a real-world system. The two machines are semiotically indistinguishable. The spinner-machine and the programmed computer (the sign-vehicles) both stand for the real-world system of chemical concentrations discovered by the researcher (the referents) because of the mental concepts in the minds of the people who use the devices (the interpretants). Viewed as a question of semiotic logic, there is no good semiotic reason why one should be a patentable invention but the other should not. A patent regime in which the spinner-machine is eligible for patent protection is difficult to imagine, however, so the routine patentability of iconic computer models should be treated as suspect at best.

It would seem that the author does feel that qualifying computer models as iconic may determine patent eligibility. Unless, we consider all computer models as being iconic.

[ 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 )