|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
You misunderstand: what I was saying is that your "general rule",
while a wonderful ideal, is factually wrong (although SOME judges in the US try
to adhere to it). What was in the lawmaker's mind at the time may have nothing
at all to do with the legal meaning of a word - it depends on the specific case,
and it's not always cloaked in terms of understanding the intent, sometimes it
is quite the opposite and simply recognizes that things have changed - for
example, that women and non-whites are now understood to be persons.
Please tell me what these two different definitions of math are that you're
thinking of - and where the word "math" appears in the law you're
talking about.
By the way, AIUI, in a US patent law sense "useful art" implies the
physical.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
The non patentability of math isn't written explicitly in the statute. The
Supreme Court has decided mathematical algorithms are non patentable in their
Benson decision. In further rulings (Diehr, Bilski) they have explained that
algorithms are a special case of abstract ideas and this is their reason for
finding them unpatentable.
The Federal Circuit has found they disagreed among themselves on how to
interpret the word algorithm and they have decided to look directly at whether
an abstract idea is preempted instead. Given that an algorithm has to be an
abstract idea, they think patents on algorithms will be caught that way.
The Supreme Court concept of an algorithm is explained in the portion of the
Benson decision which is dedicated to summarizing the facts of the case. So I
would suggest that this could be considered a factual issue to some extent.
This summarizes the current situation on how the courts understand the word
algorithm. As you can see there is some ambiguity and misunderstandings.
When invoking the precedents the courts will want to verify whether the case in
front of them match the facts of the precedents. I am fully aware of that. The
software is math argument is not about finding a way to place the word
'algorithm' as a magic incantation to invalidate a patent. It is about
collecting the facts of mathematics and computer science that are applicable and
presenting them to the courts. Then, hopefully, the courts will stop applying
patent law on the basis of fictional computer science and set precedents which
are based on factually correct notions of mathematics and computer science.
Yes there is a task of convincing the courts that the facts are applicable.
There may be a task of convincing the courts that mathematical algorithms in the
mathematically correct sense are abstract ideas. There is a task of explaining
how software is always an algorithm in this sense, and therefore it is always an
abstract ideas. This is why my preceding articles were so long. I wanted to
collect the sources of evidence and make it all available to those who may
volunteer to carry out this task.
So I don't see that the difference of understanding between the courts and
mathematicians as a valid objection to the software is math argument. On the
contrary I see this as a reason to bring these facts to their attention. Of
course they will make up their own mind and they won't necessarily agree with
everything that I say. But I am sure the courts are willing to learn about all
the applicable facts and and they will weed out the errors that may be in their
precedents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
