Consider that a single solution to a given goal is good. But a dozen
solutions pointing to the same goal is even better.
Instead of
criticizing - perhaps put forth an authoring in your own words as to why
Software shouldn't be patentable.
The more reasons we give that ring true
- the more likely Congress will finally explicitly outlaw Software as patentable
subject matter.
To follow my own suggestion, here's mine:
Software
as applied to a computer is no more or less then a formula as applied to a
calculator. You are using the device for exactly what it was built to do and
nothing more.
You're not building something greater - like combining a
computer with gyros and other components to build a robot. You are strictly
using it to calculate - exactly like a calculator.
The
computer/calculator is patentable. Using it for exactly what it was built for -
and no more - should be exhausted with regards patentability. Once a person
learns how to use the calculator/computer - to use the device for any logical
computation after that is obvious.
You can even purchase programmable
calculators set up so you can enter the logical constructs that exist in
software. The only difference between these programmable calculators and
computers is the magnitude of the hardware.
Does it really make sense to
allow a patent on a calculator - charging the public for it - teaching the
public how to use it, and then charging another patent fee on the process "enter
2+2= into the device and read the display"? No. And it should make just as
much sense as applied to a computer.
To answer the first part of question
a:
The test to apply: can the process be done by a human with a pencil and
paper?
To answer the second part of question a:
This speaks to
"computer" which inherently speaks to hardware - not software. I accept
Hardware as patentable, software should never be.
To answer question
b:
When speaking of hardware:
Method speaks towards processes - not
processed like in processed cheese, but process as in
E=MC2
System could speak to either a mental process,
processed cheese or a physical component.
Storage medium always speaks
to a physical construct.
With regards 101 purposes (patent eligible subject
matter), I suggest: Method should never be patentable, process as in a mental
construct should never be patentable, process as in processed cheese can be
patentable, storage medium (and other physical constructs) can be
patentable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
