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
I don't think he's right - on a number of things | 428 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I don't think he's right - on a number of things
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT

He's said math is patentable. The Supremes keep saying it's not. He says that's how the Law reads. But he ignores case Law and the fact the Supremes have a power to prevent Congress from just authoring any Law Congress wants - such as a power to shut down a Law allowing slavery.

He's said a process of "apply 2+2= on a calculator and review result" is patentable. The Supremes in Mayo made quite clear:

    simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle
On a Supreme Court ruling he was unhappy with, he's voiced the opinion:
    How long will it take the Federal Circuit to overrule this opinion?
Sorry - I do not believe he's right on the current state of Patent Laws. And he insists the Supremes are wrong while he insists he is right. I say the Supremes - although not quite fully there yet - are far more right then Mr. Quinn is.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A long, sustained interaction (done politely) has far better results.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:14 AM EDT
No not always. It depends on whether the party is willing to listen and willing
to be educated.
Discussion with a preacher for software patents that just to his creed
"software is not math" doesn't give anything especially when the
opposing party uses erroneous definitions on both software and math. Some also
reads the law the way they want it to be, not how it is.
Not all people can be educated. Just clinging to preconceived ideas is not
conducive to understanding.

I say Software is Math, not because it is a creed or preconceived idea, but from
long experience of both software and math.

Me thinks Gene Quinn protesteth to much.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

from what i've read on his site and here
Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT
gene deals primarily in strawmen, ad homs, and straight up
insults rather than in any honest and meaningful discourse. i
find conversations with people who behave as he does to be
tedious and pointless, but that's just me.

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There's clearly a disconnect here.
Authored by: albert on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT
The SC says math is not patentable, but the USPTO patents it anyway. (Just look
up any codec or encryption patent).

Now, if the 'math is not patentable' homily were enforced, _most_ software
patents would be voided. Those remaining would be software patents disguised as
'method' or 'process' patents.

No progress will be made until this issue is settled.

[ 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 )