Re: SFLC: "a penumbra"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
> > http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf
> 
> http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf
> 
> "Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a
> processs", says Shell.

What Shell wants is this:

<quote>

Based on an inapplicable general definition of "component", the United
States argues that "the software copy that is actually loaded onto
computer is a part, element, or ingredient of the patented invention."
U.S. Brief, at 8.  However, that too is overbroad and reflects inexact
terminology.  If the "patented invention" in question is a claimed
product of system, the specific copy of the software that is loaded on
the computer may be a "component" of the patented invention.  However,
for the reasons stated, if the "patented invention" at issue is a
process or method, the software even as loaded on a computer structure
is still not part of the patented process, but merely a material or
apparatus for use in practicing the process and hence not a "component"
at all.

...

If software can be a "component" but only when it is represented in
tangible form, then such component cannot be divorced from the
particular physical media on which it is embodied.  In that case, the
only components "supplied" by Microsoft in or from the United States are
its golden master disks which are never combined with anything outside
the United States in a manner that would infringed Respondent's asserted
product or system claims.

</quote>

U.S. Brief: 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.DOJ.pdf

regards,
alexander.

--
"Boycott Exxon-Mobil"

 -- www.stallman.org