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

I think it means what you think it means. However | 457 comments | Create New Account

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

I think it means what you think it means. However

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:21 PM EDT

I don't think that what it means is particularly important with regard to the
dred pirate "Software Patent."

The whole sentence is : Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be
considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art.

IMHO, I don't think "software" is an unpredictable and undeveloped
art. Therefore, lack of a working example is not an especially important factor
to be considered.

One can describe a computer implementable method in the broad strokes of a
software architect and be understood to have invented the method or to be in
possession of the invention at the time a related patent application is filed
even though the nitty gritty of the machine code, or even the nitty gritty of
every class and function and header have not been specified.

But because only an
enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual
embodiments.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ahh - so you were a little quick on the trigger with quoting Paul - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 07:47 PM EDT

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 )