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
Please don't use my signature! | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Please don't use my signature!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:00 PM EDT

At the very least, please exercise sufficient caution you don't copy a signature.

And I'm afraid you're mistaken.

I believe the value of wages represent a stack of physical currency. However, if that's not physical enough for you
The Supreme's in Bilski made quite clear it was insufficient. It doesn't matter that it is insufficient to me. It is insufficient to the Supremes!

You are still doing nothing more then a calculation.

change my example to rain fall amounts
Bilski was a hedge against weather - still insufficient.
kilos of beans delivered
Is the calculation actually involved in the process of controlling a device to deliver said beans? Nope - your process as outlined does nothing with the physical. It's still nothing more then a calculation.
or pixels values of x-ray image data of a physical object
Did you actually include the x-ray device in your patent application as I assume Abele did? Nope - your process that you insist is eligible under 101 is still nothing but a calculation. I'll have to review Abele at some point if I can access the opinion. Part of the reason I can access Bilski so easily is because the Supreme Court makes it available themselves* and I don't have to go through one of the paid services.

Sorry - the process you outlined in the four corners that you outlined it: is ineligible for patent protection failing basic 101 patentability because it is nothing but a mathematical/abstract construct.

You have been doing nothing more then pointing at other rulings that find patent eligibility that happen to include software as well as non-abstract components while completely ignoring the Supremes (in at least one of those very cases) making quite clear the math algorithm as a stand-alone does not qualify for patent eligibility.

You can claim I don't understand "abstract" vs "non-abstract" the same way the Supremes do.... but it seems my definition - based on the Supreme's rulings as evidence - is very much closer then what you're insisting.

* An incredibly large Thank You! to the Supreme Court for upgrading their systems and making their opinions available to the Public without having to go through a paywall.

RAS - the real 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 )