|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Congress hasn't seen reason to change the wording of Patent Law to explicitly
allow math formulas to be patentable.
Just saying....
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
These exceptions date back from the nineteenth century at least. Congress has
revised the patent statutes several times since. They had the opportunity to
amend the law to instruct the courts they are not wanted. They didn't do that.
This means Congress has consented to the exceptions by not removing them when
they could.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
| Here's the current
setup. Note that
the issue in the court's minds currently is what kind of
software is or is not
patentable. The position here on Groklaw is not
the
same as the way it currently works. It's the way we think
it *should* work. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Useful outline - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
The prohibition against software patents is not in the Constitution. It is in
the copyright law itself. Mathematics cannot be copyrighted. Furthermore, the
Constitution gives Congress authority to make copyright law, and the
Constitution in NO WAY requires Congress to grant any patents on anything
whatsoever. It says Congress MAY grant patents, it does not say
"must." No one has a Constitutional right to receive either a patent,
or a copyright, or a trademark.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
