[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• So the math is NOT patented? - Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
  • So the math is NOT patented? - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT
  • So the math is NOT patented? - Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:18 AM EDT
    • So the math is NOT patented? - Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT
      • So why did you use it as justification for a patent on math - Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
      • So the math is NOT patented? - Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
        • The obligitory DWIM reference :) - Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• The first example is bad - Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT
• The first example is bad - Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 11:07 PM EDT

I don't think that whether this applies to a discrete problem is the issue with this patent. Yes, this is implemented in software (since the claim does not describe a new invention/machine, but rather a set of algorithms for processing a set of numbers (input from the screen)).

In *this* example, it's not patentable because there it fails the transformation test. We don't have any identifiable new invention that is a machine or transforms anything. There is hardware that transforms things (changes bits from zero to one, polarizes lcd pixels, turns pressure on a touchscreen into a digital signal, etc), but the software just provides rules for altering the numbers represented by those digital signals.

The machine-or-transformation test is a pretty tough one to leap over if you're talking about a software patent, and unless there's a new machine (physical thing), it's not a hardware patent.

---
'Murphy was an optimist'
-O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• The first example is bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT