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
You got it 100% backward | 709 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You got it 100% backward
Authored by: jbb on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:22 PM EDT
You seem to be assuming that software patents spur technological development. There is overwhelming evidence that they do the exact opposite. The US is in great danger of losing it software technology edge because of the software patent minefield. Take a look at the recent NewEgg story.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Retrospective law change ..
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 04:42 AM EDT
And what law needs to be changed? The patents have all been unlawfully granted -
if that fact is now recognised then no law change is needed, they just fall by
the wayside.

Anyway, it seems to be a fact of doing business in the US, patents (on anything,
not just software etc) are granted as a matter of course, and then they need to
be tested for legality in the courts. What's changed?

All that's changed is that the Federal Court have changed case law (so yes, you
have your law change here) to say that software "as such" is not
patentable.

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )