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
Can you explain that for us non lawyer types? | 709 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can you explain that for us non lawyer types?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT
It means that the federal circuit is thoroughly divided. A
majority agree that this patent is not valid under section
101, but they can't agree on the process by which they
independently reached that conclusion.

So it will be very hard for lawyers to advise their clients
as to what software or business patents may still be valid -
there's conflicting guidance on how to decide. Some patents
will be no good under any of the majority approaches, some
might be OK under all of the approaches, some will be OK
under some but not others, and there's no telling what
approach will win next time a case like this comes up.

But the fact that the Fed Circuit used section 101 at all is
big news.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can you explain that for us non lawyer types?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 07:45 PM EDT
Not a lawyer, but I can take a crack at it...

It means that although the court wasn't able to come to much of an agreement on
the opinion as a whole, those particular items had substantial agreement and
should be considered accordingly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can you explain that for us non lawyer types?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Imagine you're at a family reunion picnic, and while the fixins is just fine, the elders, talking off to the side a bit, have agreed that CLetuS ought not have been invited. There are eight different reasons why they all think he should not have been invited, and even you agree the burly boys oughta toss him back to his pickup truck and point it down the hill, but each of the eight also spent the better part of an afternoon arguing that their reason was the right one. Grandpa Rader, in particular, has been complainin' y'all aren't listenin' to him and don't you remember you were told to respect your elders?

So while eight of you agree CLetuS is out and won't be invited back, a few still don't and it's not clear if you'll all agree about Bumpkus next year when he gets a pickup too, because it's still not clear what y'all, as a group, didn't like about CLetuS.

But it's noteworthy, because nobody ever done got bounced from this picnic before. Grandpa's worried that if y'all bounce one, where does it stop? Won't this hurt the family? But some folks think the time for annual picnics is past. Just too big. High time you started bouncing folks and thinnin' the herd. Gotten out o' hand, it has. Some of these folks ain't even family, it's been whispered, and should never have parked their pickup here. Folks is talkin', and now they ain't whisperin' no more.

It'll be quite the topic, I imagine, at the Supreme harvest dinner.

[ 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 )