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
He is also trolling for help | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
He had some followup comments
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:17 AM EDT
I suppose if this is going to be the law of the USPTO it really doesn’t matter because it looks like software is dead. At the moment I can’t conceive of anything that could be patented if this test is to hold up.

No, Gene, software will not be dead, just software patents.

The trouble we have here is that as a result of this articulation and the articulation of 5 of the 10 CAFC Judges on CLS Bank, no software is patent eligible.

Gee, Gene, now you are getting it!

---

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

He is also trolling for help
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:37 AM EDT
The PTAB conclusion that Versata’s claims preempt an abstract idea is flat wrong and, frankly, insulting. The PTAB could say their hands are tied by Supreme Court precedent, but they shouldn’t pretend that these claims that specifically recite tangible structure preempt an idea. And if they are going to say that shouldn’t they be required to define what is an abstract idea?

No Gene, really, I think it is quite clear that they know what an abstract idea is. Perhaps, with more study, you will find your own definition someday.

---

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Did the PTAB just kill software patents?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT
The heart of the fallacy is in here.
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!
Software is input given to a universal algorithm. Of course the universal algorithm is useless without its input. That is how it works. Input doesn't make a new machine. It is just an ingredient for the machine to operate on.

Quinn's argument is applicable to every device that requires an input to function. A car is useless without gas. A player piano is useless without a piano roll. A DVD player is useless without a DVD. A printing press is useless without a document to print. I can continue like that. No new machine is made in any of these examples.

Even if we accept the theory that programming a computer makes a new machine Quinn's argument leads to contradictions. A web server is useless without a web page to show. A print program is useless without a document to print. A database management system is useless without data. A text processor is useless without text. A calculator is useless without numbers. But none of these inputs are software. Does supplying them make a new machine? Remove the data from the computer and the software can't do anything. Give the computers the data and presto-chango! The paperweight is now a useful machine!

The Federal Circuit in CLS Bank made clear they think programming a computer rewires the computer. So it is not just the new functions. It is the rewiring that matters. Show the judges the computer is not rewired and the new machine doctrine is dead. Giving an input is a physical operation that doesn't change the circuit structure.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A computer without any software?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:27 AM EDT
So, no bios, no peripheral drivers, no working keyboard or display... in fact,
just a computing device with the ability to execute a string of instructions
from its repertoire of valid instructions.

It is not a dumb terminal. You need software for that.

BTW, it is not a mobile phone, washing machine or smart television, either.

It is absolutely fabulous how adding software to an old computer can turn it
into a truly new washing machine.

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

[ 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 )