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

The algorithm is in the eye of the beholder | 457 comments | Create New Account

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

The algorithm is in the eye of the beholder

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT

Where this is going - unless you specify exactly which
transformations you have used, you have not implemented the
method. If you haven't implemented it, you haven't invented
it. Anyone can write down a list of things - implementation
is what matters (or should matter) for patents. IMHO, for a
patent to be valid, it has to have been realized. And the
patent is on what was realized. If you built it able to use
3 different transformations, you can get a patent on those
3. Only those 3. If you want a 4th, you need to add it -
and then prove that that addition is creative enough to be
worthy of a patent, given your existing patent.

And I'm consistent - I want hardware patents to be detailed
enough to build, and the inventor to be able to produce on
demand a working copy.

jjs (not logged in)

[ 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 )