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
Your week spots are faulty - but you have one core point correct | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
All Software is Non-Novel
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 10:32 AM EDT
I'm an application developer and I have no problem accepting the idea that any code, any ability to make a machine behave in a pre-determined fashion has already been invented and is just lying there waiting to be discovered. In fact, I think that is closer to what I actually do than to say that I "invent" something now and then.

I don't "invent", I take basic building blocks and arrange them in a fashion that (hopefully) achieves the intended goal in an efficient and robust manner. These basic building blocks are the functions made available by the operating system, the functions surfaced in the language and the functions provided by the database handler. Any thing that can be done with software is already lying there waiting to assembled in the right sequence, to be discovered, you might say.

On my good days, I may arrange these blocks in a way no one has yet discovered or tried. I may envision a complex system that achieves my goal and then be able to assemble that system quickly with a minimum of error but that does not mean I "invented" anything. This is not a hard pill to swallow, it does my ego no harm because I know that possessing detailed knowledge of the available functions of the coding environment at hand coupled with a deep understanding of the problem to be solved is non-trivial and not something most people can or even care to do.

Of course, this does lead down the path of 'all the atoms were already there' which is an extreme but so is it an extreme to say that anything and everything is new and novel and deserving of a patent. It is obvious to me that my personal arrangement of the basic building blocks is a matter for copyright and not patentable subject matter. To the extent that software has the protection of copyright, to me it does not need the additional protection of patent. No patents for software please.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The patented bicycle is made of known nuts, bolts and atoms.
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:42 AM EDT
The inventive concept lies in the physical distribution of the parts.

The skill of software is the weaving together of many abstract ideas and
concepts and this requires very complex thought processes and understanding of
the software tools employed.

The bicycle requires a much less demanding weaving together of abstract ideas
and concepts together with the laws of nature stated by Aristotle and others. It
is the visible assembly of the components whilst keeping together the ideas that
is the patentable bicycle. It is a patented machine.

The software that is produced by the inventive process cannot be seen as any of
the four classes of patentable subject matter. Only the abstract ideas and
concepts can been seen when the source code is viewed. Just because the abstract
ideas can be discerned, that does not mean that a patentable visible assembly
will ever be produced or be visible in the source or compiled code. Assembly
does not mean assembly of machine parts, in computing.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your week spots are faulty - but you have one core point correct
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 08:39 PM EDT

By analogy, all devices that are built from pre-existing components (like all electronic devices) could be regarded as non-patentable subject matter,
For a proper analogy, please select something that can properly be patented that does not have physical form.

In the alternative - please prove that software has physical form.

that all software is inherently non-novel,
Not a logically true conclusion. Something can be very novel and yet be an abstract concept. I present as evidence:
    E=MC2
You then state:
The key issue, and the argument we need to focus on, is that software is abstract, and all that is processed or "achieved" by software is likewise abstract.
Bingo! That I agree with in it's entirety.

And abstract = non-physical.

    Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
I'm pretty sure the Supremes once worded it as:
    can be done with the mind - with pencil and paper
Sadly - I haven't been able to find that quote. It'd be an absolute Gem to add it to the list of delicious Supreme Quotes.

And the definition of concrete is:

    Existing in a material or physical form; real or solid; not abstract.
And the definition of material is:
    The matter from which a thing is or can be made;
    Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
All the definitions point to:
    physical form
And the physical you can touch! Everyone understands the physical.

And if we consider the Legal definition of abstract... well... none of them really make sense in the context of "what is patentable". For example:

The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.
Err... why would it make sense to say:
    You can not patent an abbreviated history of an official record!
Did some Patent Lawyer at some point actually try to do that? Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if someone did.

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 )