|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
Every physical changes potentially make a new
machine.
Physically
identical changes sometimes make a new machine
and sometimes they don't
depending on legal context.
The causal relationships as understood in
principles of
computer science and electronic engineering are not
considered
relevant in this determination and are ignored.
The actual machine structure is
not even looked at.
Function alone is evidence that the new machine is
made.
The possibility of implementing new function without
actually making a
corresponding physical structure which
causes this function is ruled out by
legal fiat.
The existing capabilities of the machine which have been
built-in
by the designer are ignored when determining
whether the machine has a new
capability. Only prior art
counts in this analysis.
Now we are on
the same page, with a couple caveats:
1. the existing capabilities of the
machine are important -
that's the prior art
2. because processes are
patentable, new functionality is
paramount
3. patents cover machines with
capabilities, not just the
structure of the machine. And you are right that the
fact
that the capability could go away if RAM is emptied is
irrelevant.
4. As
for plows, someone got a patent on the first plow with
interchangeable parts -
what's that do to the argument?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
