|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Patent law states that processes is patentable.
So why not claim
the innovation as a process and legally
analyze it on this basis? Why do we
have to use a meaning of
the term machine which bears no connection to the
reality of
what a machine is? It is this sort of things that brings
disrespect
to patent law and those who practice it. The
connection with reality is lost
when lawyers do this kind of
things.
I'm totally with you. I
think so called "Beuregard" claims
that are "a storage medium with
instructions" are weak. I'd
be happy to limit to a process.
And you are right
that it is a "fiction" of a new machine.
It is the practical effect. But why
does it matter? Because
the merits of the invention should be on the inventive
principle, and not the form it takes. It is a waste of time
to debate whether
the solution is carried out in a special
purpose machine or a general purpose
one (or in software v.
hardware). What should matter is whether the end product
is/does something that nothing could do before.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
