|Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT|
|> Computer science arguments are fairly irrelevant|
> and, I guess will remain of limited interest to most
> judges unless they can be used to clearly place some
> fraction of software patents into categories that have
> already been labeled as unpatentable.
This is precisely what the software argument is designed to do, to clearly place
a large fraction of software patents into a category which has already been
I think you didn't pay enough attention to how the software is math is being
argued and what is the relevant case law. You emit opinions which are clearly
> Given that the courts have extended the reach of patents
> based on reasoning that business method patents are kind
> of like physical inventions sometimes...and that software
> patents are a lot like business method patents...
You have it backwards. Business methods patents are largely based on the
patentability of software, not the other way round.
They have found software patents are always patents on a new physical machine,
or a process by which such a machine operates. This is their basis for declaring
software patentable. See the Prater and Alappat cases. Business methods
analogies play not part in it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]