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
Because of the forum you are posting on. | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Abstract = non patentable subject matter
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 05:27 PM EDT

Its very particular processing of very particular kind of information from a very particular source.
Processing may or may not be abstract. Can the processing be done with pencil and paper? Such as listening to a telegraph key and writing down the message? If so:
    It's abstract!
Information = abstract! There's no way the concept of information can be reasonably argued as anything but abstract.

Source = may be abstract, may not be. In this case the source is radio technology that is unchanged. I assume this is so because this is what I have been saying and you have not corrected me on this point.

Abstract + Abstract + pre-existing technology = unpatentable subject matter.

Unintelligible signals gets transformed into understandable information.
Telegraph signals on a telegraph key are "unintelligible signals" to those who do not know morse. Just because someone can translate the language does not make it patentable subject matter.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Because of the forum you are posting on.
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 08:07 PM EDT
If any patent on software is mentioned most people posting on
Groklaw will argue against you.

Basically because there are so many bad ones issued. But
personally I think some software patents, in rare cases,
should be granted. I also think that the implementation
(code) should be included in the patent.

[ 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 )