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
Logging some related thoughts: | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Logging some related thoughts:
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT

Unfortunately I was only able to skim it, with little comprehension, unable at this time to give it deep contemplation. Seems though you have given us food for thought here that wasn't anticipated by PoIR. I have not seen reference to the semantic level outside of PoIR's discussions. At a minimum it appears PoIR hasn't done his homework, or he would have incorporated this material into his essays to point out it's fallacies. What have you done to us, macliam? I fear that without a powerful rebuttal, what you have just presented leaves his entire thesis at risk of being summarily dismissed by anyone who matters ie: The USPTO.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Logging some related thoughts:
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 03:13 AM EDT
Thanks for your thoughts. I will have to read them again to make sure I
understand everything.

Did you check how the analysis based on semiotics related to you are saying?
What do you think about this?

My view is this whole legal analysis is blurred because the courts are
conflating a mathematical description of a physical invention with a statement
of the computation which must be accomplished. This is the reversal of
semantical relationships which are described in section B.4.

A first step should be to straighten up this confusion. No meaningful discussion
of claim construction can occur before this happens. Then we can draw the line
between the two types of meaning: interpretants and referents. Only then we can
tell an abstract idea from the application of an idea.

[ 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 )