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
USPTO seems to not even follow the Supreme Court's rulings, are they really gonna listen to us? | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
USPTO seems to not even follow the Supreme Court's rulings, are they really gonna listen to us?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM EDT
(lurker since ~2009)
If you have to specify an algorithm for a SW patent (as RH suggests), then
someone else can point out that that specific Algorithm is actually Maths:

- And so Patent -> dev/null

- Or not - and if not at least one can look and see if your algorithm infringes
at the earliest stage.

btw

if your algorithm is basically
A
B
C

and someone implements

A
Y
B
C
reverse Y

is that infringing or not?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Software is abstract, period
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:54 PM EDT

It is language!

One thing the pro-software patent folk can't insist is that it is physical - because that is something they simply can not prove.

Under any of those reasons:

    Math
    Abstract
    Communication medium - in other words: language
It should fail to be patentable subject matter.

I believe the USPTO - not necessarily the examiners, but definitely management and the appeals unit - choose not to listen to the Supremes and instead choose to listen to the Patent Lawyers.

As a result, my message is not intended for them. It's intended for the Supremes and anyone in Congress willing to consider what software really is.

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 )