|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
To be clear, the "sweat of the brow" argument is not covered in patent
law, copyright law, or Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which allows
the Congress (not mandates, simply allows, if they so choose) to implement such
law. Further, the SCOTUS has ruled in no uncertain terms that the "sweat
of the brow" argument is immaterial, and not relevant or applicable to
patent or copyright eligibility or justification.
The applicable SCOTUS ruling is in <a
href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499
&invol=340">Feist v Rural</a> for copyright. I can't find
particular case-law applying specifically to patents, however <a
href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1406.p
df">Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics</a>, a
Federal Circuit ruling (colour me shocked, given their leanings) would seem to
apply.
As an aside, the constitution is rather clear about the justification for patent
and copyright. The burden is on the patent itself: if it cannot be proven
actively beneficial to the progress of the sciences and useful arts, then the
patent is not fulfilling its constitutional mandate, and as such, should be
found invalid under the US Constitution (from which the authority to create
patent and copyright law stems). There has not been a single case of any
arguable benefit to the sciences or arts by software patents, and significant
evidence that they've been actively detrimental from the start. As such,
software should be fond ineligible. Patents, by definition, are artificial, and
should be used sparingly, and only where they provide clear benefits that outway
the detrimental effects, it should always be a case of proving positive benefit
to determine patent eligibilty, and never a case of proving why we should remove
such protections. Non-protection should be the default state, and the burden of
proof lies in proving a NEED for such protections.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Well you have captured the issues rather nicely: "What is
the original element in that patent? It is the idea that
Finger
motion Patterns can Represent Words (FPRW)."
You are right - the rest may be obvious. But patents have
always protected bright ideas that are relatively easy to
implement once you have the bright idea. So, the question is
whether the bright idea is obvious. Maybe this one is.
You say someone, sometime might come up with it, but that's
true of every invention. Many argue that this means we
shouldn't have patents - fair enough. But software is not
different here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT |
Shorthand notation has been using signs to mean words on written documents for a
hundred years ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitman_shorthand
since around 1837 ... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
