|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
I think the problem lies with what is being patented. Both patents are on
computer science programming concepts. The geeks will argue about what the terms
used to define the concept mean.
All the lawyers can do is argue about the English meaning of claims text that is
an imperfect definition of one geek's concept. One scientist's compiling is
another scientists interpreting.
It is all narrowing down to the point where folk realise that what has been
patented is either math or abstract ideas or both. The judge pointed out that
each side had been confident because of their interpretation of text. In the
inventions, only the text is there: there is no invention there, there.
If the court applied the Bilski test of 'what comes out of the sausage machine
post-process?' or 'what does the user of the machine see as a result of using
it?' then the patent owner would have to admit that they don't know because it
is not a useful invention.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
