|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Where your argument falls down is that the "where an input device
translates data to symbols and an output device translates the processed symbols
back to data" has to satisfy multiple criteria. Not only does it have to be
patentable subject matter, which is what you are saying, but what is being
patented has to be novel, useful, and non-obvious.
To make your version of it work you would have to have something other than any
old I/O device doing any old I/O with the symbols. Perhaps you would have the
calculations used to drive a device that adds a measured amount of some chemical
to a mixture for making rubber. Clearly a new process for making rubber is
patentable even if part of it is software that controls the process. But only if
nobody knew before that adding that amount of that chemical would have that
effect on the rubber.
Notice that the software that drives the new rubber manufacturing process would
not be protected by the patent. Anyone could write and run that software as long
as they did not use it to actually make rubber.
So adding I/O is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to turn purely
abstract software into something that might be patentable. If it is patentable
I/O.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
"But is it all avoidable if they include 'a system including a computer
program where an input device translates data to symbols and an output device
translates the processed symbols back to
data'"
No, the US Supreme Court already anticipated that any competent patent lawyer
would try that sort of drafting language trick. When the US Supreme Court
declared that algorithms were unpatentable and must be treated as familiar prior
art for patent purposes, they also explicitly stated that insignificant post
solution activity would not transform a non-patentable algorithm into a
legitimate patent.
An industrial Rubber Manufacturing Process that happened to list software in one
of the steps is patentable (*if* it possesses novelty and non-obviousness
outside of the software itself), but fancy software plus minor, obvious, or
prior-art physical activity is not patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
But input is introducing symbols into the computer from the outside. Output is
moving symbols outside of the computer. Both operations are manipulating
symbols.
To get a patentable process you would need to do some non symbolic operations
like actually curing the rubber. And even that may not always suffice.
Manipulation of symbols is just how the abstract idea is identified. This is not
the complete test. Some more legal analysis is needed to make sure the claim is
not just some artful draftsmanship to patent an abstract idea. The last section
of the article discusses this sort of things.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:28 AM EDT |
at that point what you're doing is the equivalent of patenting "using a
sewing machine to sew T-shirts together".
You didn't invent the sewing machine. The sewing machine was sold for the
purpose of sewing ANYTHING, including T-shirts. This is not patentable because
it is not an improvement on the machine, nor is it a new use for the machine --
it is merely using it for the purpose for which it was sold.
The general-purpose computer was sold for the purpose of running ANY software.
So running any software on it is merely using it for the purpose for which it
was sold.
But suppose that the courts don't accept that argument. There's a second point:
this type of "machine plus software" patent, on its face, can be
infringed ONLY by someone selling the machine and the software combined.
Someone selling the software by itself is *incapable* of infringing the patent
and should be able to throw any lawsuits out of court instantly.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
