|
Authored by: TennSeven on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Perhaps you are correct that, for software patents, an
"ideal" solution would be to provide source code or psuedo
code. However, I think you would agree that this would not
be the *only* solution to the requirement which, as you
correctly state, is merely to show how to do the thing in
question (to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art).
At any rate, I am not arguing that software patents are
written in an ideal format, nor that software patents should
even exist in the first place. I was just pointing out that
the issue brought up in this thread, that a use of
"legalese" in patents might confuse those who are limited by
the patents, is not generally a problem because these
patents are not written by lawyers in a vacuum.
Instead, the patents are written by lawyers who are also
engineers, then vetted by engineers who are not lawyers and
then interpreted by engineers who are affected by them,
often with the help of their lawyers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
This means that the claims really should be in language
suitable for someone
wanting to re-create the invention. For software patents
that means it should
be comprehensible to a programmer...
The
algorithm [with pseudocode (possibly specifically designed for patent
description?)] would be ideal
... Ideally this should mean
providing source
code ... for the thing being patented.
The source
code is covered by copyright - it is the implementation of the invention - so
why need patent?
Most algorithms can be implemented with different source
codes. However, including source code would provide the definitive model of the
invention and anything not in the provided source code would not be the patented
invention; similarly anything extra in the source code would not be the patented
invention: there would have to be a linking between the implementation (source
code) and the patented invention (eg by comments round code describing the
claims it implements). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|