|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
The argument is not about whether software is patentable as a process. It is
about whether a new machine is made.
Process patents are not the topic of this article.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Running software on a machine specifically designed to run software is not a
"new use" no matter what it does.
This is the same misdirection as all those who thought Amazon's one-click patent
was a good thing... take a process that has existed for ages, then claim it's
new just because it uses a computer or the web.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
It does say that a process can be an improved way of using an existing machine.
'(b) The term "process" means process, art, or method, and includes a
new use of a known process, machine,, manufacture, composition of matter, or
material.'
I see nothing in the act that says that a machine can be patented which is
identical to an old machine, because it is used in a new way.
---
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 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
The use for which the computer is sold. That use is "run arbitrary
programs".
Different if you're buying an XBox and using it to do scientific computation;
that would be a new use of an old machine, arguably. But if you're buying a PC,
running any program on it is *the intended use for which it is sold*; it is not
a new use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
