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
Sorry for my lack of insight, | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sorry for my lack of insight,
Authored by: PolR on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 06:37 PM EDT
I agree with you.

This is a business method patent and the 'rubber' is not found anywhere.

I don't know what would be a non-bogus business method patent, but this isn't
one.

This case is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the Federal Circuit
approach and the scary thing is they don't notice it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

_any_ examples of non-bogus business method patents: Nope!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 05:21 PM EDT

Because "business methods" are abstract!

If it must be tangible in the sense of having physical form... no business method is embodied in physical form.

That's the illusion. For those of us willing to give benefit of doubt, when pointed to the thought:

    It's possible there could be some totally new, unique, useful business method that deserves patentability
... we do that which we are inclined: give it benefit of doubt that it's possible.

Until we realize the truth is pretty simple:

    abstract concepts are not patent eligible subject matter
    business methods are abstract concepts
therefore:
    business methods are not patent eligible subject matter
It doesn't matter how unique, useful, creative, or any other positive adjective the "business method" is. No one questions the value in E=MC2. That doesn't make it any less the abstract concept and therefore unpatentable.

If it's unpatentable subject matter - there really is no need to examine any of the other limiting factors in Patent Law. To consider those relative to non patentable subject matter is to imagine the non-patentable is patentable after all. And you start to give truth to the lie when you start to view it that way.

I think that's why so many pro-software patent lawyers want the question moved to other limiting factors of Patent Law. So the abstract question isn't examined and the lie is given to the material making what should be unpatentable patentable.

RAS

[ 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 )