|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:37 AM EDT |
The understanding that software algorithms are math algorithms plus the Supreme
Court findings in Mayo, Bilski, Flook, Benson and Diehr are all sufficient to
rule out all software-only algorithmic implementation of patented functions
being an infringement on the patent.
We don't need a blanket decision by the Supremes that software is unpatentable
subject matter. We just need them to confirm that the decisions they cite as the
landmark, controlling decisions on patents control all legal patent cases.
There are no software patents. There are only patents on math algorithms in
software computing abstract functions disclosed in patents. If the rule of law
presently in place was not ignored by the courts and the USPTO, then the mere
mention of an on-a-computer or an in-a-memory would be enough to rule the patent
invalid.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
That is ironic. That was the exact same thing I was thinking. We can "opt
out" voluntarily according to the judge, but that doesn't work when
somebody comes after you for infringing on the obvious.
That judge has no clue what kind of mess he is forcing onto the software
world. For shame![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
The problem is not the bad software patents. The problem is the bad computer
science the courts erroneously think is fact when they apply the law to
software. Get the courts to use correct computer science and software patents
are gone.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Doh! - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: qubit on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
The software industry is being strangled to death by the
bureaucratic nightmare this man helped to construct and his only response to
complaints is the equivalent of:
Let them eat cake!
Yes,
it looks like we all had the exact same impression from reading Paul Michael's
remarks!
Personally, I would have quoted this line -- it was definitely the
moment I realized that Judge Michel really had no footing in software and, even
if he perhaps had once spent time using a computer, he had been so far removed
for so long from such worldly pursuits to the towering perch of the judicial
bench, that he really was unprepared to reason about software
patents:
"If software is less dependent on patents, fine then. Let
software use patents less as they choose," Michel said. "If other industries are
terribly dependent on patents, then let's not wreck the system just because
software people are unhappy."
Yes, Michel, let the software
die, and thus "decrease the surplus population!" :P
What scares me so much
about this situation -- and what should scare Judge Michel and others in the
legal community who want to see this problem rectified (i.e. the disconnect
between the courts and those practicing in the field) -- is that after hearing
this interview I remain hopeful that the breakdown is just in education. Even
though the ranks of lawyers may well be populated with more nasty, spiteful
persons than any other occupation (though I don't believe it for a second), I
believe that many of the pro-software-patent judges and lawyers are actually
operating from a position of misunderstanding and incomplete
reasoning.
Unfortunately, I have no idea on how the software community could
effectively communicate with these judges/lawyers. We can't very well spirit
them off to some cabin retreat for a few weeks to teach them the basics of
computer science and programming, though that would be a good place to start! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
