|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
Your assertion is:
I take issue with your
assertions regarding
obviousness. If its hard to show
that something is
obvious, then almost by definition, it is
not obvious.
And I
reply thus:
Baloney. Please demonstrate the obviousness of the
color
red.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
Don't be wilfully stupid. The Federal Circuit, despite the
SCOTUS' clear warning in KSR, continues to apply a
"Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation" test which allows for
implicit motivation but requires explicit teaching or
suggestion in the prior art.
You can find tons of prior art that says "this is a general
purpose computer, you dope. You can use it to automate all
kinds of business methods." Apparently that's not good
enough for the Federal Circuit.
They seem to want a document that says "you can also use
this general-purpose computer to peform the particular
business method X". Those are hard to find because a) it's
TOO BLOODY OBVIOUS for anybody to write it down, other than
a patent lawyer, and software patents are too new for a lot
of them to have been written down yet. The field of things
you can do "on a computer" or "over the Web" or "on a
mobile
phone" or "using a touchscreen" is simply too large, and
Moore's Law is progressing too fast, for any scribe to keep
up.
That last point is important: all these applications become
not only possible but cheap, primarily due to powerful
market forces dictating rapid progress in hardware. (A few
algorithmic breakthroughs are important too - think of FFT -
, but those tend to come out of academic research.) There's
absolutely no need for the "incentive" of a patent system to
"support" software innovation. In the field of software,
patents do the opposite. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Read the dissenting opinion. Having read the patent, it's
old-school trading, just done "on a computer." Why this was
granted a patent (much less one in both Australia and the US)
is a mystery.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
