|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
No Implementation of software that is, or can be, run on a general purpose
computer can be held as infringing on any software patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
| New work computer, didn't sign in... /sigh [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
This represents a huge improvement over the status quo. However quite obviously
you think that firmware should be patentable. I'm curious as to why you think
there is a need for this since firmware is already copyrightable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
"But people with complex code-heavy specific industrial
processors (as in that rubber case etc), and people
inventing CPU's with microcode components, should be able to
protect their (rubber processing) machine."
[How does patenting microcode accomplish anything? It's
unknowable by anyone once the chip is produced. How is the
configuration of gate array patented? Its configuration is
meaningless without a myriad of input and output circuits.]
If the rubber processing machine is novel and unique a
mechanical patent will protect it. If the PROCESS is novel
and unique, it can be patented. Why do you need a software
patent? Isn't it the PROCESS you want to protect?
You see the problem with software patents is that they
attempt to patent ALL POSSIBLE USES of a particular subset
of instructions. How many software patents would stand if
the RESULT of their processing was considered? Is looking
up a word a patentable process? Is a word a patentable
result of a process?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
