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
Genetics - SW Patents consistency dangers | 265 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Myriad Genetics before the High Court
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:59 AM EDT
Something that is confusing me about this.
After it was sent down, the FDAC reheard the case, didn't the FDAC then agree to
hear the case en banc?
I seem to remember that happening but never hearing the en banc ruling. ISn't
SCOTUS hearing this premature?

MouseTHeLucyDog

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Genetics - SW Patents consistency dangers
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 05:53 AM EDT
The problems with any patents on "data" which are normally
in the realm of not patentable subject matter 'as such' are
the entanglement with their physical embodiment. The data
contain "instructions" which, at times 'seem' or are judged
to produce a "technical effect" in nature.

Thus in the UK we have had software patent creep since
Aerotel/Macrossan (2006) modified by Symbian (2008) with the
four step test:

1 Properly construe the claim;
2 identify the actual contribution;
3 ask whether it falls solely within the excluded
subject matter; and
4 check whether the actual or alleged contribution is
actually technical in nature.
By adding the words 'as such' to software, 'number 4' -
contributing a technical effect becomes the confusing
and contentious issue as to "patentability".

The IPKat: Patentable subject matter - Where are we now?

PS I still don't understand how and why software patents
are both copyrightable AND patentable. Does any other
subject matter attract both these protections?

[ 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 )