|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Might it be ok if software was considered to be making a new,
specific machine,
as long as one had to patent the details of that
machine?
No this still doesn't make a new machine. The software is
always input to a known pre-existing algorithm. Supplying input doesn't make a
machine.
Also read the part about computers being unable to process meanings
and what this does to what is the function of a computer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Oh yea: to disclose the invention to the public!
Many companies
would avoid patenting their true secret sauce because they would have to
provide too many details.
That's the choice companies
are supposed to make. Either they protect their invention as a trade secret or
they get it patented. It's not supposed to be both.
Title 35, Section
101:
may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title
Section 112 (one of the
requirements):
The specification shall contain a written
description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and
using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best
mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his
invention.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the company wants to
keep their secret sauce a secret, acquiring a patent is the exact opposite of
what they want because they are required - by Patent Law - to disclose the
secret sauce so others can make it.
Any Lawyer that helps a company keep
their secret sauce secret as well obtain a patent on it is - in my humble non
legal opinion - egaging in Legal Fraud against the Public.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|