Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

3. Diamond v. Diehr | 709 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

3. Diamond v. Diehr

Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 03:37 AM EDT

I was struck by the Diehr description too, particularly
where it said that you could only infringe the patent
if you used the algorithm with all the other parts
of the patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

3. Diamond v. Diehr - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 05:18 AM EDT
- so if one could use that same proces to - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 11:28 AM EDT
  - so if one could use that same proces to - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- rehash & "as such" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 12:20 PM EDT
  - I think that's right - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 04:18 AM EDT

Diehr is a bogo-patent.

Authored by: albert on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 12:14 PM EDT

It is simply a process patent using non-novel algorithms to accomplish a
specific task. Process control systems have been doing this for decades. It is
not a process to cure rubber (that's already been patented). It's not a machine
patent. It is like those codec bogo-patents, which put us on the slippery slope
that led to software patents. I don't believe the patent system should allow
'class' patents, no matter how limited they are, when they are only series of
common algorithms perform on a computer.

Take away the computer, and what's left?

[ 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 )