|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT |
>> I don't think that there is anything that is necessarily
unique to software patents, as opposed to say mechanical
engineering patents.
>> > 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.
Every software invention that does something useful on a PC does so at the logic
level. The entire invention is the logic steps, and there are no significant
limits placed on the result by the physical world.
When you transform a physical material, however, then the logic steps now are
coupled with mother nature.
To give an example. I can come up with a program where you cook virtual rubber
and get it to work like Diehr. Then I can change the program a bit and get the
virtual rubber to turn into virtual nuclear fission material. Then I can change
it again and it becomes a virtual magic tonic that can turn a person into a
virtual Superman or equivalent. Then I can change it some more and have the
result of the rubber cooking be a virtual explosion that turns a virtual planet
into a virtual heaven.
To give a second example, a virtual movie player, whatever it does, is still
just a virtualization and is independent of the laws of nature that might
otherwise limit what a real physical movie player could do.
Everything "created" by a program on a pure electronic device is a
virtualization of whatever goes through the imagination of the author. There are
no significant limits that the physical world places on the results.
To get patent protection, goes the SCOTUS/Diehr argument here, you have to come
up with a recipe/program/algorithm that is attached to some physical embodiment,
for example, achieves a physically meaningful/useful transformation of matter in
the real world. Of course, that transformation has to be novel as well (eg,
turning on lights in a common screen display would not be novel today).
That said, I don't think patents generally are a good idea without more fine
granularity and a reasonable test that can end the patent duration early if x or
y happen in the market place (eg, if the inventor/owner achieves a certain
return on investment or fails to take investment steps within a certain amount
of time, etc). Otherwise, you are holding back progress very likely.
-- Jose_X[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
