|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
SO the law is inconsistant.
You can't patent mathematics, except that you can.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Wow again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT |
mrisch wrote That aside, even if it is not a different machine, if I
come
up with a process for aiming the cannon, and that process
includes some
math, then I still get to patent the process.
This is Diehr. And here it doesn't
matter if it's the same
equipment that existed before - nothing in the Diehr
patent
was new - it was all the same.
IMHO, the previous software
patent discussions on Groklaw have ALL been about software "machine type"
patents (i.e. a new process on a general purpose computer is patentable because
it creates a new machine). Software developers reject this idea as absurd
because we know that the general purpose computer has not changed and because
the patent claims are written so broadly and vaguely we can not safely program
around them (Note, I am making the obvious assumption here that we can
understand what is being patented by reading the patent claims).
My
question is Do software "process type" patents exist and how do you tell the
difference between them and software "machine type" patents? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
The process to aim the cannon has all the hardware necessary.
WHERE to aim the cannon has nothing to do with the hardware.
The mathematics to choose WHERE to aim is not patentable.
In fact, that was one of the (if not the) first purposes of computers.
The mathematics for aiming cannon has not changed since the astronomer Kepler.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
