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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Abstract thought | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Abstract thought
Authored by: Wol on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:46 AM EDT
"With computer science ..."

"Philosophy does not give such a black and white test ..."

OOOPPPSSS.

Computer Science is a subset of Maths.

Maths is a subset of (or is defined by) Philosophy.

I'd've thought that a Philosophical answer would be far more definitive than a
Comp Sci answer!

Philosophy is the overarching subject that is the use of logic to define
(amongst others) what Science and Maths really are! Newton wasn't a Physicist,
or a (Al)Chemist, or a Mathematician. He was a Philosopher.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You can't make bricks without straw
Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 06:15 PM EDT

To me, it seems that nobody would be convinced by a long document combining theory of computation with semiotics unless they are already convinced. And even if the document did convince anyone in government or the judiciary, how would that change the law? People may say that it would be good if the law said so-and-so, but that is not going to change the law.

The equal and opposite position is equally uncompromising. A computer is a machine. (Can you refute that proposition?) If a computer is programmed in a way that adds functionality to the computer, then this is an improvement to the functioning of the machine. (Do you dispute that?) And to add a claim limitation that the computer is programmed so as provide useful functionality meaningfully limits the scope of the claim. Thus to install a useful program on a computer is to enhance the functionality of the computer, and is thus an improvement of the machine. To me, I don't see anything in lambda-calculus, or Turing Machines, or 'referents' and 'interpretants' that refutes the legal argument just stated.

And if I wanted a ‘mathematical’ gloss on the argument, I would point to the theory of finite state machines. A real-world computer has a finite amount of memory and storage. The Turing machine has a tape infinite in both directions. The Turing machine is not a real-world machine. It is a pure abstraction introduced in relation to a mathematical and philosophical problem in the theory of computation. Thus the finite state machine is a more realistic model of a real-world computer. And to configure the computer amounts to restricting the internal states.

Are you proposing that the Patent Office should refuse patent claims that do not cite a 'referent'? What is the legal basis for their so doing? The Patent Office does not have discretion as to whether or not to grant a patent. It has to follow the law as interpreted by the Federal Circuit (and the Supreme Court). The statute says:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

In other words, whoever invents or discovers something in the categories is entitled to a patent, unless some provision of the statute is not fulfilled. Suppose that the PTO rejected a patent claim on the grounds that the claim 'failed to claim a referent'? When the worthy inventer sues the Commissioner of Patents, what defence is the Commissioner of Patents to make before the Federal Circuit? Which section or clause in the statute gives the PTO the authority to reject a patent claim that 'fails to claim a referent'? Where is the term 'referent' defined or mentioned in the statute? And if not in the statute, what relationship, if any, has this 'referent' test got to any of the 'implicit exceptions' established in over 150 years of case law from Le Roy v. Tatham and O'Reilly v' Morse through to Funk Bros., Benson, Flook, Bilski and Mayo? Were 'referents' and 'interpretants' mentioned or discussed in those cases? Can you point to any case in which a patent claim was refused, on the grounds that 'it failed to claim a referent'? Can you give a citation to any case with any dicta that include the words 'referent' or 'interpretant', in any context?

The Supreme Court in Bilski ruled that the Federal Circuit was in error in attempting to establish a bright-line Machine or Transformation test that was not grounded in the words of the statute. They made it clear that such bright-line atextual 'tests' have no basis in law. But the MoT test was at least based on a study of Supreme Court precedents. The 'referent test' seems to me to be even more atextual, and even more contrary to legal principles acceptable to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court opinions, in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, supplied about 97 pages of highly technical legal argument, to construe a mere five words of statute: “lawfully made under this title”. Assuming there was some clause in Title 35 to construe, how many hundreds or thousands of pages would the Supreme Court have to devote to showing that the requirement that a patent claim should ‘claim a referent’ was implicit in the statute?

It seems to me that the justification for basing an argument on an ‘implicit exception’ for ‘abstract ideas’ and ‘abstract intellectual concepts’ is that there is established case law that specifically provides for these implicit exceptions under the principles of Common Law!

[ 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 )