Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Scholarly Papers by Grant Harrison

Overview: This post lists a variety of scholarly papers that have been written about the world of Software Law.

Papers: 

Send your Software Law updates to grant@patentlyo.com

51 thoughts on “Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Scholarly Papers by Grant Harrison

  1. 3

    The Madison article may be interesting… (emphasis added)

    Abstract

    ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, which enforced a shrinkwrap license for computer software, has encouraged the expansion of the shrinkwrap form beyond computer programs, forward, onto the Internet, and backward, toward such traditional works as books and magazines. Authors and publishers are using that case to advance norms of information use that exclude, practically and conceptually, a robust public domain and a meaningful doctrine of fair use. Contesting such efforts by focusing on the contractual nature of traditional shrinkwrap, by relying on market principles, on adhesion theory, on commercial law concepts of usage and custom, or on federal preemption doctrine, feeds rather than resists this trend. This article argues that instead of regulating shrinkwrap itself, reinforcing an adjudicative environment that focuses on public values inherent in copyright and information policy is the best means of preserving fair use and the public domain as meaningful concepts.

    1. 3.1

      Meanwhile the Miller article (associated with Stanford – Lemley?) starts off horrendous (Bessen and Meurer) and then goes deeper into the weeds.

  2. 2

    Lemley >>>While there is some truth to each of these criticisms, the real problem with software patents lies elsewhere. Software patent lawyers are increasingly writing patent claims in broad functional terms. Put another way, patentees claim to own not a particular machine, or even a particular series of steps for achieving a goal, but the goal itself. The resulting overbroad patents overlap and create patent thickets.

    This man needs to be removed from Stanford for ethics violations. Lemley is the one that claims there is no structure to software and doesn’t even cite to the 1000’s of papers from scientists that say there is structure to software. Moreover, the books used in the engineering classes at Stanford say that the functional language is needed to capture the known solutions.

    Plus Lemley does not even address WD or enablement and how it limits what can be claimed.

    Just a shameful paper.

    1. 2.1

      Reading something from Mark Lemley is like listening to trash talk before a football game. The man just spouts out shxt and there is no accountability.

      Criminal given that he is making big bucks burning down the patent system and Stanford doesn’t hold him accountable. The Trump of patents–Lemley the man with no ethics.

    2. 2.2

      Plus trash boy doesn’t even discuss why scope of enablement is correct way to think of claim scope nor that scope of enablement is easily policed.

      So we have—again–from Lemley just pure trash.

      1. 2.2.1

        So we have—again—from Lemley

        Look again at the date that that paper was written.

        This is less “again” from Lemley and more “again” from academics trying to recycle this past crpola in attempts to drive a false narrative. The Lemley and the repetition of the Lemley paper is nothing more than propaganda.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          You are right I didn’t notice that trash boy wrote this in 2012.

          I think, though, that people don’t understand the profound affect that Lemley has had on the patent system. You should spend some time talking to all the Lemleyites at universities. They quote him as if everything he says is true. And Lemley has gotten probably about 20 professors appointed to universities as professors. Many of which post on this blog. The whole lot are a blight to civilization.

          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            The Lemley machine is something to behold and reminds me of two quick points:

            Academia is not a meritocracy. It is a cessp001 of groupthink and 1ncestuous self-replication of particular desired narratives. Way back when I investigated a possible career path along academic lines and was revolted by what I found.

            The second — and unsurprisingly related — item is the participatory role that academia has had in some of this nation’s worst economic scandals (think of the S&L debacle and the number of Ivy League academia with hands in the pot).

            Critical thinking is so often a casualty of the manner in which academia has gathered (and maintains) its grasp on power.

            1. 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Yup. And the professors Lemley help get appointments are among the worst group of people I’ve ever seen anywhere.

          2. 2.2.1.1.2

            Why is patently-o calling attention to something that was published in 2012?

            1. 2.2.1.1.2.1

              I take it that the author regards these as a collection of seminal and critical works of scholarship in this field. He is putting this out there as a sort-of helpful “if you want to join the conversation on this topic from an informed and intelligent starting point, you need to be familiar with at least these papers.” I do regard this list as any sort of endorsement (as if Grant Harrison means for you to think that he agrees with the theses of these papers), but rather as simply an acknowledgement that these are influential papers in this field.

              1. 2.2.1.1.2.1.1

                I do regard this list…

                Yikes, what a typo! “I do not regard this list… .”

              2. 2.2.1.1.2.1.2

                Well that makes the person referencing Lemley’s paper unethical as well. Lemley’s unethical conduct should be front and center.

              3. 2.2.1.1.2.1.3

                Googling “Grant Harrison” reveals…

                …nothing.

                I agree with you that the listing appears to be an endorsement, and I agree with Night Writer that endorsing Lemley (and especially the Lemley tripe in regards to patents and software) is reprehensible and is the opposite of your (fawning?) characterization of “seminal, critical “works of scholarship” — egads, informed, OR intelligent.

                As I noted, this is propaganda, pure and simple.

                1. What makes this propaganda and the people that support it unethical and intellectually dishonest is that they do not address black and white issues where Lemley has simply li ed.

                  Software does have structure.

                  Functional language is used to capture the known solutions as the textbooks used at Stanford say.

                  Etc.

                  Yet these people think they can just skip over li es.

    3. 2.3

      “Moreover, the books used in the engineering classes at Stanford say that the functional language is needed to capture the known solutions.”

      What engineering books? I don’t think any of my engineering books were concerned with ‘capturing solutions’.

      1. 2.3.1

        Ben–I have linked to books before on here. I have quoted the books before. I have given specific functional language and explained why it is necessary.

        Your little game of I don’t remember to try and confuse the issue and force me to do work is he inous.

        1. 2.3.1.1

          Nothing more than a lazy “Br’er Rabbit” game. Plenty of opportunity for the likes of Ben to engage on the merits when the points have been previously presented, and now he only “speaks up” to obfuscate with a semantics game.

          I am half waiting for Greg to snipe in with a “that’s engineering and not legal angle, even though I have shown the parallel to your engineering views is well known in the legal context.

          1. 2.3.1.1.1

            It illustrates that people like Ben are unethical and intellectually dishonest.

            I think it is a deep issue in the USA. When a group of people feel they are right, then somehow it is OK to behave in anyway they to try and get their way.

            So Ben is a good example of a person with absolutely no care about how he treats pro patent people. Ben has no character. No morals. No ethics. Just like Lemley.

            1. 2.3.1.1.1.1

              Reflective of the widespread “Ends justify the Means” that I point out (on a nigh constant basis).

            2. 2.3.1.1.1.2

              “So Ben is a good example of a person with absolutely no care about how he treats pro patent people. Ben has no character. No morals. No ethics. Just like Lemley.”

              I asked a reasonable question and you say I’m immoral? This is a new level of irrationality for you.

              1. 2.3.1.1.1.2.1

                Your question was not reasonable – as easily indicated by the snide add-on about “capturing.”

                You may choose to play the f00l, but it is a mistake to think that others are as f00lish as you.

      2. 2.3.2

        The important thing here, Ben, is that someone, somewhere, at some unspecified time in the past has quoted (or maybe paraphrased) a textbook on a subject tangentially related to the present topic, and if you are not thoroughly convinced of every subsequent assertion by the same someone related to this or any similar topic, then the only plausible conclusion is that you are a wicked, wicked person, with the ethics and morals of Jack the Ripper. I hope that this has clarified the matter for you.

        1. 2.3.2.1

          … so says that “paragon” of moral rectitude and inte11ectual fortitude…

        2. 2.3.2.2

          This is the same game Ben plays each time.

          You seem to be falling into the same trap Greg. Try to think of your character as more important than winning or losing any particular argument.

          1. 2.3.2.2.1

            Try to think of your character as more important than winning or losing any particular argument.

            Sage advice, that. I would say you the same.

            A man’s word is worth exactly the value with which he invests it. If one tosses around “unethical” in situations that more properly merit “disputable,” one cheapens the value of that word.

            1. 2.3.2.2.1.1

              A man’s word is worth exactly the value with which he invests it.

              Says the guy who snipes from the sidelines on certain legal matters (e.g., Constitutional law topics) while NOT engaging on the merits.

              So, since you bother to invest zero, your “word” on such topics is…

              Zero.

              Ok then.

            2. 2.3.2.2.1.2

              Greg, >A man’s word is worth exactly the value with which he invests it. If one tosses around “unethical” in situations that more properly merit “disputable,” one cheapens the value of that word.

              There was no evidence presented to dispute what I said and the evidence I have presented. I don’t toss around unethical lightly. It is unethical to not cite to the textbooks regarding functional language and the structure of software. I have seen no evidence that dispute the evidence I have presented and it is certainly unethical not to present the counter evidence in a paper as Lemley does.

              You have a nice style of writing. It is a shame that there is no substance behind it Greg.

              1. 2.3.2.2.1.2.1

                You Greg repeatedly defend the indefensible by denying facts.

            3. 2.3.2.2.1.3

              What can you say, but, assuming they have any clients, I pity their clients.

              1. 2.3.2.2.1.3.1

                “Deny the existence of the ladder of abstractions.”

                That would be wrong. I had a pet peeve once, but my Giant Slalom ate it.

                1. I’m sorry. I realize now you were not doing a Bob and Ray thing. Can you cite one Supremes case where they talk about this “ladder? If not, a Court of Appeals case? District Court? Traffic court? Animal control?

                2. A. Lioncoln:”Can you cite one Supremes case where they talk about this “ladder? If not, a Court of Appeals case? District Court? Traffic court? Animal control?”

                  Tell us how claims are supposed to be interpreted. From whose perspective.

                  Not that your nonsense deserves an answer, but there may be those so naïve as not to see you for what you are.

                3. … my ever-shifting historical pseudonym friend answers “no” to a “how?” and “whose?” questions….

                  More of that “famed” laziness/ig n0r ance.

                4. Does one need to provide a court (any court) citation to understand what “Ladders of Abstraction” is, or to recognize the reality of such?

                  Hint: no.

                  This has been another adventure of the inane “gotcha” attempts by the historical shifty one.

                5. So A. Lincoln did not even bother to respond to a substantive question. Instead low character response.

                6. Night Writer,

                  Unsurprisingly, he would rather play his “gotcha” game (on a point that proves nothing).

                7. “Does one need to provide a court (any court) citation to understand what “Ladders of Abstraction” is, or to recognize the reality of such?

                  Hint: no.”

                  On the other hand, since we’re talking about patents here, the writings of the tribunals that determine validity and infringement are highly relevant.

                8. “So A. Lincoln did not even bother to respond to a substantive question. Instead low character response.”

                  Right back atcha, big guy. No, wait, you did answer “no” to my substantive question. But not directly. A somewhat low character response?

                9. A. Lincoln

                  I am not going to play the game of doing all the work and citing cases that discuss that software does have structure in re Alappat does and is still good law. There are also many other cases that support what I’ve said.

                  But still no substantive response from you and this attitude that somehow I am supposed to prove things to you. Go do your own research and let me know how it comes out. So far you sound like a flat Earther. Prove to me that software has structure. Well, boy, go do a little research.

                10. “and citing cases that discuss that software does have structure. . . . Prove to me that software has structure.”

                  What kind of game are is that, changing my question? Now you’re arguing your point 1, stated under 2.3.2.2.1.2.1. “Ladder of abstractions” is your point 3.

                11. On the other hand, since we’re talking about patents here, the writings of the tribunals that determine validity and infringement are highly relevant.

                  Sure – IF they have something to say on the matter.

                  But their silence does NOT say what you seem to think that it says.

                  Again, my shifty-historical friend, you are being either lazy or ig n0r ant (or perhaps both).

                12. “But their silence does NOT say what you seem to think that it says.”

                  The courts are silent on astrology in reaching their decisions on validity and infringement. What do you think that says?

                13. They also do NOT take issue that the moon is made of aged cheddar cheese.

                  So what?

                  (you seem to be so dim as to not recognize that YOU do not have a point here)

                14. “YOU do not have a point here”

                  You helped make it. Yet, you do not know what it is?

                15. You are confused, as usual, my shifty historical friend.

                  I know very well what points have been made here – and your gibberish is not such a thing.

                16. I was talking to slow cousin Grey anon, my shiftless snowflake friend Green anon. His gray matter neurons will eventually fire and figure it all out.

  3. 1

    Lemley: more chum of the smelly variety.

    Of what purpose is regurging this claptrap?

    1. 1.1

      Yes; $$$Lemley$$$

      The best chum that money can buy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture