|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
To add to this, I think anon is missing the distinction between deSCRIBE and
deFINE.
I moan about dictionary writers thinking that they are deFINing the language
when they are actually deSCRIBing it, but here we have the opposite.
If I write down an algorithm on paper, you could argue that my paper version
isn't maths. And you could be right. But what is on the paper is the deFINition
of the algorithm and the deFINition is maths.
But when you submit a normal, proper, genuine patent application to the Patent
Office, you are deSCRIBing your invention. To be valid, a patent application has
to be a deSCRIPtion of the invention. But any software application which
includes the source must be invalid - it is not a deSCRIPtion of the invention
but a deFINition of it. And if the applicant has actually submitted a
deSCRIPtion of his software invention it is a deSCRIPtion of a deFINition, and
therefor invalid because it doesn't actually deSCRIBE the invention.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|