|
|
|
| Authored by: ScaredDeveloper on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
>> I don't think that there is anything that is necessarily
unique to software patents, as opposed to say mechanical
engineering patents.
With a mechanical engineering patent, you can build it, and it better work, or
the patent is worthless. With software patents, this is not the case. The
patent doesn't even have to describe the solution in a way that provably works
(since it doesn't contain the source code). You can still sue everybody and
their brother for "violating your patent," and you might even win.
The USPTO doesn't understand software at all, so everything looks inventive to
them (just pay your fees and they're happy).
Can't you just be happy with a Copyright on your software that will probably
never expire, since it was made after the first Mickey Mouse cartoon?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
If you read my comment, again, you will see that it is the novel result of the
process which is patentable. The process steps, or recipe of steps and materials
is not protected in its own right. It is only protected when executed, as in
Diehr, as one part of the whole process with a novel result.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
