|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
"process
n 1: a particular course of action intended to achieve a result; "the
procedure of obtaining a driver's license"; "it was a process of trial
and error"
method
n 1: a way of doing something, especially a systematic way; implies an orderly
logical arrangement (usually in steps).
Since a process is a course of action followed by a person with the intention of
achieving a result, "
The above appears typical of your arguments. There is nothing in the
definitions you posted to require that a process is a course of action followed
by a person.
A process for initializing a hard drive can be performed by a machine...
I agree that a process must be carried out to infringe a process claim.
However, it is contributory infringement to provide software that will carry out
a claimed method.
Moreover, it is perfectly legitimate to claim a machine for carrying out a
method, even in the same patent application wherein the method is claimed and
even if the only thing that distinguishes the machine from a similar machine are
the instructions it is programed to carry out. That would clearly be a new use
for an old machine (35 USC 101/100).
"Perhaps you will see why we were so upset when Oracle obtained patents on
the methods used by software authors when writing software algorithms. What is
worse, the inventions were described both as a machine and a method invention.
If they had been found infringed by the jury, the court would have found that
the computer was infringing on the doing of the patented method. Further,
simultaneously, the charging or setting of memory locations in a mobile phone
infringed on the same invention because it was also claimed as a machine. The
infringement would have been found in mobile phones for which the software
programmer used his skill and judgement using a method of programming similar to
the programming method described in the patent."
I don't know anything about the Oracle case. If your complaint is that the
claims were to something known, and if your are correct in that assertion, then
I share your outrage. However, I know how hard it is to get a patent. So I am
skeptical that every detail of the claimed methods were known or obvious. I
have read quite a few comments here and usually patents are objected to based on
the title instead of the detailed claims. Outrage is express over a patented
FFT because FFT has been known for decades....all the while ignoring the fact
that what is being claimed is a very particular way of calculating an FFT.
However, if your complaint is that the Oracle patent claims a computer that is
programmed and you believe a programmed computer should not be patentable
because computers are made to be programmed, I have no sympathy for your
position. Every invention is made of components being used they way they were
intended in an abstract sense. Fasteners are used to fasten. Inputs receive
inputs, amplifiers amplify...chemicals react with receptors or other
chemicals...The invention is in the particular arrangement, what is being
fastened, what is being received, what is being amplified, what is the
particular chemical and with what in particular does it react.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
