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
Well, you might understand THAT concept, but you donb't understand what is patentable. | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Well, you might understand THAT concept, but you donb't understand what is patentable.
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 11:52 AM EDT
We dispute that installing software improves the computer.

See section B.5 of the supplement.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Who should I believe.... you or.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT

... the US Supreme Court?

I think I choose to believe the US Supreme Court. After all - unless you are one of the Supreme's they are authority over you as far as interpreting the Law is concerned.

As a result, Patent Law extends further then the limited that you presented.

The Supreme's have made quite clear that abstract concepts (such as math) and Laws of Nature (such as gravity) are not patentable subject matter.

Math isn't the only abstract concept known to humanity. Language is as well. And software is merely the combined use of Language and Math in order to direct machinery to perform an expected pattern of "information processing". And yes, information processing is also abstract. This is absolutely no different then the music role on an old player piano. The medium (paper) has changed (plastic, medal, etc.). The information (holes) has changed (burn, magnetic field, etc).

But it's still nothing more then using a language to direct a device. Much like when you "push the buttons 2+2= and read the calculator display".

As a result - it's only a matter of time till the Supreme's realize software is abstract, does not exist in any physical form, and as a result is clearly not patentable subject matter.

My humble non-legal opinion.

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 )