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: PolR on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 10:26 AM EDT
I think your division in three level is useful.

A typical claim fuses the physical, logical and semantical level and the courts
don't have the concepts and vocabulary to sort things out. We should strive to
give them these concepts and vocabulary. Then they will work out out these these
are applied in legal context. I think your three levels are a useful addition to
what we already have. It is too late to introduce them in these documents, but I
keep the idea in mind for the next ones.

Perhaps we should seek a better word to describe the logical level. Computer
programmers will know what you mean, but judges and juries will interpret
"logical" in a sense related to ordinary logic.

I think the logical level is connected to the notion of universal algorithm. The
logical level is the algorithm the programmer wants to implement. The physical
level is what the computer does. They don't match because whatever the
programmer wants to do must be translated into the universal algorithm.

Perhaps it is better to talk about the "wanted algorithm" and the
"actual or physical algorithm". This will strike home the point that
we don't program a computer by physically configuring the electrical circuit.
This is the real message we want to send. The courts think the words in the
claim match what the computer physically does. They need to be told this is not
how it works.

Semiotics is useful in dealing with the non mathematical aspects of computing,
especially the semantical aspects and how semantics relate to the physical. But
when it comes to algorithm and the underlying math we need to talk about
computation theory and the stored program architecture. This is where the
distinction between physical and logical matters.

[ 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 )