|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, July 14 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
The intentions of the law are the intentions of the people who wrote the law.
If a computer is used to commit a crime such as fraud, it is the person using
the computer that is committing the crime and not the computer. The computer is
one of the tools used. A plea that 'it was the computer what done it. I told it
not to' is likely to be a poor defence.
Why would a method or a process patent not be about people doing things with the
intent to achieve a result? Why would the law construct such very different
meanings to dictionary words and not declare those different meanings in the
part of law where they are used (ยง 100)?
If a computer user uses a patented mathematical algorithm to play back a
compressed music file it is the computer user doing it with the intention of
infringing on the method patent. The computer is just the tool used by the user
to execute the patented algorithmic method.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, July 14 2012 @ 02:17 AM EDT |
From Wikipedia:
A fast Fourier transform (FFT) is an efficient
algorithm to compute the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) and its inverse.
There are many distinct FFT algorithms involving a wide range of
mathematics, from simple complex-number arithmetic to group theory and
number theory;
Benson:The mathematical procedures
can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being
necessary. And, as noted, they can also be performed without a
computer.
The Court stated in Mackay Co. v. Radio Corp., that
"[w]hile a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a
patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of
knowledge of scientific truth may be." That statement followed the longstanding
rule that "[a]n idea of itself is not patentable." Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v.
Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507. "A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental
truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can
claim in either of them an exclusive right." Le Roy v. Tatham, Phenomena of
nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work. As we stated in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., "He who
discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of
it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a
discovery,
it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end."
We dealt there with a "product" claim, while the present case deals with a
"process" claim. But we think the same principle applies. ...
It is
conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be
the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals
were patented in this case. The mathematical formula involved here has no
substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer,
which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly
pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on
the algorithm itself.
Flook:Our approach to
respondent's application is, however, not at all inconsistent with the view that
a patent claim must be considered as a whole. Respondent's process is
unpatentable under 101, not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one
component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior
art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention.
Even though a
phenomenon of nature or mathematical formula may be well known,
an inventive application of the principle may be patented. Conversely, the
discovery of such a phenomenon cannot support a patent unless there is some
other inventive concept in its application.
Here it is absolutely
clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention.
The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well
known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use
of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be
recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for "automatic
monitoring-alarming." Respondent's application simply provides a new and
presumably better method for calculating alarm limit values. If we assume that
that method was also known, as we must under the reasoning in Morse, then
respondent's claim is, in effect, comparable to a claim that the formula 2(pi)r
can be usefully applied in determining the circumference of a wheel. As the
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has explained, "if a claim is directed
essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if
the solution is for a specific purpose, the
claimed method is
nonstatutory." --- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
Because your pro-patent bullshit arguments lead inevitably to that conclusion.
It's a "new use" for the stapler, right, according to your bogus
arguments?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|