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
My Response to Judge Moore | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My Response to Judge Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Consider, for example, the following patent claim.
26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:

    a floor broker,

    having a phone perched on each shoulder,

    with sufficient monitor screens to display

        (a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and

        (b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and

[...]
Is this a claim for a machine? The Sun Microsystems 670mp appears to offer the possibility of faster, more accurate transactions. But the two colums of "exasperative detail" and the pages of figured flow charts "satisfy [my] predilections" only insofar as they codify transactions that had been performed by human operators for maybe a hundred years. The speed and accuracy of the transactions was not at suit, it was the method, system, and media claims at issue
because, albeit computer-implemented, they recite no more than an abstract fundamental mechanism of financial intermediation with no inventive concept.
What dismays the more simple minded folks around here is that learned Judges can also fall for fairground banter if it's dressed up in the right legal prose.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • My Response to You - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
    • It's Both - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:34 PM EDT
So a Judge Perusing a Legal Document is a Patentable Process?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 22 2013 @ 04:34 AM EDT
Is a Judge reading a document in a legal case a patentable process? Quote:
Judge Moore "Actually no, we know that's not right because we have the specifications of the patent.. which aaa if you look at columns 7 and 8 span 2 full columns of exasperative detail about how for example .. 'the processing unit 20 comprises 3 interlinked data processers, such as the sun 670mp manufactured by Sun Microsystems, each processing unit runs operational systems software such as sun microsystems os 4.1.2 as well as applications software. The applications software is shown in the flow charts accompanying this patent ie figures 8 through 16 and figures 18 through 40 which contain detailed flow charts that would certainly satisfy anybody's predilections regarding an algorithm disclosure for sofware purposes .... Perry "your honor" .. this is so far from just a computer doing an abstract idea .. I can't even imagine how you can characterize it as such."
Let us go over the evidence:

You have a biological data processor inside the Judge's head, containing a Broca's Area for processing incoming sound, and a Wernicke's Area for processing intentional speech. It is controlled by genetic means which permit it to process abstract and concrete data. It has Input and Output Channels which are likewise controlled by genetic means.

Genetic means are patentable matters.

It is connected by technological means including artificial body hair (clothing), artificial lighting, to various external technical means of processing speech, light, temperature, etc.

Judge Moore, Your Honour, this is so far from just a brain doing an abstract idea ... I can't even imagine how you can characterize it as such.

Ergo, Judges Perusing Legal Documents are Patentable Processes.

Wesley Parish

[ 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 )