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
Letter to German Parliament | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Letter to German Parliament
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT

To Whom It May Concern:

If you wish to correct the situation there is a very simple solution at your disposal. Change the Law wording
From:

    Software is not patentable as such.
To:
    Software is not patentable.
If you remove the "as such" the Patent Lawyers will not have any wiggle room to play with. The Patent Office will not have any wiggle room to play with.

"as such" serves no useful purpose except to provide wiggle room.

I am a concerned software developer who does not view anything he does with software as any different then creating formulas that can be done with the mind - with pencil and paper.

The "magic" is in having built the computer - the device that can process abstract concepts following the rules we learn in such subjects as math. No one argues against the patentability of the physical - the computer hardware. Only against the patentibility of the abstract - that which can be done in the mind and has no physical form. To patent the abstract is nothing less then to patent thought.

If anyone wishes to argue software has physical form, ask them to prove it. If it exists in the physical - like a table - they should be able to very easily point at the physical form.

Thank you for your time,

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 )