|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
The difference between patentable subject matter or not should not
be whether the functionality is in a circuit or in software.
Why
not? If the functionality is in software, it definitely shouldn't be
patentable. If it's in a circuit, then possibly it could be
patentable.
See, we can make unsupported assertions too.
As a patent
lawyer, you say "things should be patentable". But as software creators, we say
"software is not a physical thing, its abstract, its a pure idea, it should not
be patentable". Software patents are a destructive cancer. If the U.S. doesn't
ban them outright, it will simply fall further and further behind other more
sensible nations in software-related fields.
Either the invention is
new, or it is not.
When you build a circuit (or a machine), that
might be new, or it might not. Software is never "invented" though. Like all
mathematical constructs, it is "discovered". Programs are just large numbers
that have a particular set of consequences when fed into a computer.
Programming is the purely mental process of discovering an appropriate number to
control the CPU with (i.e. finding a useful number and discovering what
consequences it has when interpreted by the CPU).
When someone builds a new
machine (like a robotic lawn mower) that uses a CPU executing software to
control it, let them patent the machine. When someone devises a physical
process (like curing rubber) that uses a CPU executing software to control the
process, let them patent the computer-controlled process.
Just don't let
them patent the software itself, because that is extremely damaging to
innovation. It's exactly the same as giving out patent monopolies on math
calculations such as "length(v) = sqrt(v.x*v.x + v.y*v.y + v.z*v.z)", and just
as damaging. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
The devil is in the detail. Replace the "with a cannon"
with a circuit that automates the process of adjusting the angle of the cannon
and you has created something that truly is inventive (but perhaps not new).
But this is my point - the devil is not in the detail. The
difference between patentable subject matter or not should not be whether the
functionality is in a circuit or in software. Either the invention is new, or it
is not. Only if the circuit implementation was somehow more difficult should it
matter, but I doubt that's true for this kind of application. As for the prior
comment - I didn't say the cannon patent would be novel or nonobvious - if it is
all well known, then no patent should issue.
No...you have not
made any such point...instead you enter the discussion with the presumption that
details should not matter. Maybe that is why you utterly fail to make a coherent
argument for you position but change all the time.
If patents should be
about disclosure then the details must matter because else you are not patenting
the solution but the problem itself.
Also if you was correct in that
the circuit implementation need to be difficult then the case laws about
software patents and the actual patents need to tossed since patent have not
been awarded due to "sweat of the brow" arguments. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
The gun is patentable. The gun's mobile carriage with swivel gun mount and
stabilizers is patentable. The range finder and other sensors that gather
information to assist with aiming are patentable. The computer circuit board
specially designed to fit, with appropriate input and output connections (for
the sensors and swivel mount), and able to withstand vibration of the cannon
firing is patentable.
The software shouldn't be and doesn't need to be, given everything else is
patentable.
Using software to control a real world process should not affect whether or not
the process is patentable. If the process would be patentable if the computer
were replaced with a display of various readouts and switches and dials and a
human operator, then it should be patentable when the computer is used. If the
process isn't patentable when the computer is replaced, then it should not
patentable with the computer.
The computer can do nothing that can't be done by a person with an instruction
book, pencil, paper and sufficient time. What the computer adds is speed and
accuracy. That may make the difference between whether a process is practical or
not, but other than that it shouldn't affect whether the process is patentable
or not. The software is just the instruction book. The instructions could be
followed by a person instead of a CPU.
So for real world processes where the software has external input and output,
the software shouldn't be an issue. Now, for processes that only exist within
the computer (operating system, device drivers, database, etc.) that analysis
falls down. However, the software always remains a set written of instructions
that fall within the normal operation of the computer its running on.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
