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
Did the PTAB just kill software patents? | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
suggested news item from FSFE
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 01:41 PM EDT
https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130612-01.en.html

"German Parliament tells government to strictly limit patents on
software"

The link is to the English translation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Re: Apple WWDC 2013 Keynote
Authored by: kds on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT
PJ: If only they'd quit suing Android, I'm drooling. You know what Apple is like? It's like staying at a luxury hotel, instead of a student hostel, where the staff spends thoughtful time figuring what touches would make your life easier and you the most happy you came to their lovely hotel.
It is also like the hotel staff telling you that you are not allowed to go into the pool because it is too dangerous and you might drown. Or trying to order a delicious cheeseburger but being told that it isn't healthy for you so you can only order a small salad.

I understand why they lock the system down and tightly control it. Besides making them lots of money (30% Apple tax on apps) and pushing their morality onto the users (no apps with nudity), it can help to prevent more viruses/trojans/etc from infecting the devices than just those that have already found a way to sneak in. What would make many people happy and still allow those users that like the restrictions to keep things the way they are would be to add a configuration setting that either locks the system down as it currently is or allows the user to open it up and install non-Apple approved apps. A rating system similar to the movies (G/PG/R/unrated) would be a good way to lock down a device for kids and adults alike while not censoring the content for those that want it.

Droid Life has an article about iOS 7 vs. Android. Being a "pro-droid" publication, I'm guessing they are touching on those enhancements that best show their point of view, but it does show Apple doing some quick catching-up work. If anyone can find a truly unbiased review of iOS 7 showing all the actual new features not already in Android as well as the catch-up features and how they might compare I would really appreciate a linked reply.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Group wants antitrust agencies to block Google's Waze deal
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:16 PM EDT

Article quote:

would remove the most “viable” competitor
ROFL

Is that because MS/Apple maps facilities are so poor?

I have a different suggestion:

    Consumer Watchdog: suggest to your "affiliates" that perhaps they should focus on spending money on R&D to improve their products rather then on litigation tactics.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

German Parliament Tells Government To Strictly Limit Patents On Software
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 06:22 PM EDT

Sorry, it's a slashdot link.

Quote from the link:

The only exception where patents should be allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component.
No, sorry, that exception should not exist.

Perhaps someone can show how software can replace an electromagnetic component (how can software, an abstract language, ever produce an appropriate magnetic field?). This exception appears to conflict with the basic laws of physics.

As for the "replace a mechanical component" exception:

    A calculator is a mechanical component
Of course the physical difference between your basic calculator and your basic computer is that computer "has more muscle". The computer is the replacement - not the software.

As a result, this exception should not exist either because it conflates the invention of the computer with some "impression that software is more then abstract".

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Did the PTAB Just Kill Software Patents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 10:22 PM EDT
Mr. Quinn, obviously a fan of software patents, is apoplectic over that ruling.
Pointing out how such clearly defined particular physical elements as "a
data source" and "a processor" should be considered sufficient to
render something patentable. *eye-roll*

That said, at least he confesses that the ruling is consistent with the current
state of the law as handed down by the Supreme Court in Mayo v Prometheus.
(conventional steps or means cannot render an abstract idea patent eligible
under 101)...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Did the PTAB just kill software patents?
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 10:32 PM EDT

Take my word for it - if it upset Gene Quinn, this is really good news.

Gene Quinn says the Patent Trial and Appeal Board got this one wrong. Imagine that - he considers himself a cut above this distinguished panel. Then he goes on a tirade, setting up a straw man and knocking it down. He complains that this software patent depends on - get this - a "Data Source" - as his opening argument. It absolutely can't be abstract, because it needs a tangible "Data Source". Never mind that a data source could be notes on a sheet of paper, or as it has been for millenniums - just somebody's memories. Then he goes on to say it also needs a Processor and even RAM, but humans were computers long before we had machines bearing that moniker. As quoted below he asks us to imagine how useful a computer would be with all software removed. This is where he is setting up the straw man to attack, because his argument has nothing to do with whether the patent is abstract or not.

In a nutshell, the PTAB ignored all the recited tangible computer elements embodied in the claims. Once the specifically articulated and necessary structure is ignored the PTAB then concluded that the claims protect only an abstract idea.

In order for there to be infringement each and every limitation would have to be found in the accused infringing method. So under what authority does the PTAB ignore specifically recited structure? The authority that the PTAB seems to be relying on to ignore claim terms is unclear and not explained in the opinion in any satisfactory way. It does, however, seem that the fact that the invention can be implemented in any type of computer system or processing environment lead the PTAB to treat the method as one that could be performed on a “general purpose computer,” rather than a specific purpose computer. Thus, the PTAB picks up on the arbitrary and erroneous distinctions between general purpose computer and specific purpose computer without as much as a thought and wholly without factual explanation.

Sadly, the PTAB makes the same mistake that so many courts and so-called software experts make. It is undeniable that the presence of a piece of software turns a dumb terminal that is incapable of accomplishing anything into a machine that is specifically useable for the intended purpose. In order to grasp this unassailable reality the PTAB should instruct the tech people at the USPTO to remove all software (including operating systems) from their laptops and desktops. They should then attempt to accomplish any task. They will then conclusively prove to themselves that without software the computer ceases to be able to provide any functionality; even functionality of a general purpose computer, whatever that may be. Then they can instruct the tech people to load software onto the oversize paperweight occupying space on their desk, which had formerly been a computer with myriad capabilities all thanks to the presence of software. When software is reloaded the PTAB will notice that the machine can be once again used to accomplish whatever specific task the loaded software enables. Presto-chango! The paperweight is now a useful machine! No black magic, just basic understanding of software and the inherent limitations of hardware, which as it turns out is capable of absolutely nothing in and of itself.

So the key to his argument is that "It is undeniable that the presence of a piece of software turns a dumb terminal that is incapable of accomplishing anything into a machine that is specifically useable for the intended purpose."

However, the components of the Machine were already invented. It was already capable of running any software program written for it. Nothing has changed. So where is the concrete invention? The software is just like a recipe for baking a cake. Does Gene Quinn think that cake recipes should be patentable? Well - I don't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FISC to DOJ - No hiding behind this court
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM EDT
Newspick link

Thank you FISC!

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Monsanto 'ruling'
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT
link I've read the pdf and am a bit worried. I've had my sweetcorn rendered inedible from a field of feedcorn over 200yards away from my crop. I'd guess 1 in 10 kernels were fertilised by the neighbouring crop. I'd hardly count that as a trace!

[ 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 )