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
The problem: actual - but which actual law? | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The problem: actual - but which actual law?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:21 AM EDT

Our product is a CD. It's not patentable subject matter.

Actually, it is.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Patenting what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 08:52 AM EDT
The problem: actual - but which actual law?
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT
All I'm trying to say is that this new law will hand software firms' lawyers a peach of a defence on a plate.
And I am repeatedly telling you that you are wrong. Shielding end users from liability will not give software firms a new defense based on patentable subject matter because Congress will make sure this is the case.

The new defense will arise from Mayo, should judge Lourie's opinion in CLS Bank prevails and make it into precedent. This will happen (or not) regardless whether or not end users are shielded from liability. The two issues are orthogonal.

Also the new defense is unrelated to whether or not the software is recorded on a CD. This is about whether putting software on a general purpose computer confers patentability to what is otherwise an abstract idea.

By the way, whether or not a software written on a CD is patentable is not settled law. This is called a Beauregard claim. They have been considered valid by the USPTO for a time and some such patents have been issued. The validity of these claims is on shaky grounds since Bilski and Mayo but the ruling that invalidates them has net been issued.

[ 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 )