<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analysis: Less patent shield for code</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-less-patent-shield-for-code/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-less-patent-shield-for-code/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-less-patent-shield-for-code/comment-page-1/#comment-11166</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 03:58:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-less-patent-shield-for-code/#comment-11166</guid>
		<description>This is not my area but I am curious.  I remember hearing awhile back about a case regarding child pornography and the internet and the court holding that the person was not guilty because the pornography wasn&#039;t actually possessed on the individual&#039;s computer.

&quot;But the Supreme Court ruled that software code cannot be a component, since it really is only an abstraction until it is written onto something physical, like a CD-ROM.&quot;

Thanks to the internet, it is possible for an image (which doesn&#039;t even really rise to the level of code) to be viewed on a computer monitor yet never reside on a hard drive or any other physcial medium for that computer.  If so, does this image then maintain its status as an &quot;abstraction&quot; and hence not a crime?

Again, this is not my area.  Just a strange thought that popped into my mind about the law of unintended consequences.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is not my area but I am curious.  I remember hearing awhile back about a case regarding child pornography and the internet and the court holding that the person was not guilty because the pornography wasn&#8217;t actually possessed on the individual&#8217;s computer.</p>
<p>&#8220;But the Supreme Court ruled that software code cannot be a component, since it really is only an abstraction until it is written onto something physical, like a CD-ROM.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thanks to the internet, it is possible for an image (which doesn&#8217;t even really rise to the level of code) to be viewed on a computer monitor yet never reside on a hard drive or any other physcial medium for that computer.  If so, does this image then maintain its status as an &#8220;abstraction&#8221; and hence not a crime?</p>
<p>Again, this is not my area.  Just a strange thought that popped into my mind about the law of unintended consequences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.374 seconds -->
