|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
"Maybe the hardware model I use takes my pointing and clicking and
expresses it
to the software model as an input, which is processed and returned to the
hardware as an expression of output which is manipulated so that I may notice
it."
Your keyboard and mouse convert your pointing and clicking into data and send it
to the CPU (look up "keycodes" if you don't believe me). The keyboard
and mouse are patentable.
The CPU runs the software (mathematical algorithm) on the data, and produces
some more data. The CPU is also patentable. It is designed to run ANY
mathematical algorithm (any software) on the input data to produce output.
This output data is sent to the screen (traditionally in the form of raster
lines...) -- the screen converts the raster line data to what you see. The
screen is also patentable.
The software is NOT patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HP on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
You ask for patents on applications.
Applications are software, but software can be anything
from a simple set of instructions all the way up to complex
applications.
Programming languages - the base of any software-functionality (by that - of
implementations too) - were created to simplify the combination of functional
software elements. Without expressive limitation towards complexity.
But including the provision that any combination of functional software elements
is possible.
The resulting functionality of the combination of functional software elements
can be fantastic. However the complex functionality will not work outside of the
underlying language specification.
By 'working outside' I mean there is now way to create distinct uniqueness that
could be patented.
If you made the combination of functional software elements
"patentable" you were to patent the capabilities of software
languages.
The word language is the guiding item, neither complexity
nor implementation nor creative combination of elements
make the resulting expression from a "software language speech" patent
worthy.
---
hp[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
no, functionality is not patentable. Patentable is only an implementation. What
if somebody patents driving? He can patent a car (implementation) but not the
the functionality - driving.
The oter guy talking about languages is spot on IMHO. You write in a computer
*language*. Patenting something written in a computer language is like patenting
a book. Only the copyright law makes some sense for books and software.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
