Hacker News Reader

You do understand what the current lawsuit is over, right? It boils down to someone has patented an idea, the other guy says "you can't do that." The original pantentee is saying "but it is an implementation running on a computer"

View on HN

As I made plain - I couldn't read the original article. But let me see if I understand you correctly. a) person A has a patent (which incidentally as a matter of law cannot be for just an abstract idea) b) person B challenges the patent - I am not sure what the grounds for this challenge are because you don't specify them. Is it because B is claiming that the patent was falsely awarded because it was no more than an abstract idea? c) person A disputes the challenge by pointing out that it isn't abstract.

If this interpretation of your comment is correct then I don't see how it is in conflict with my observation that abstract ideas can't be patented.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com