|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
To limit arguments to what lawyers and the public can understand defeats
progress.
Remember even a lawyer can be educated so can the public.
Some are confused but none are uneducable!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
It IS worth pushing this argument.
Because once a lawyer "gets" it, it is blindingly obvious that this is
the only argument that is going to work. Point is, this argument provides a
clear "bright line" that just can NOT be crossed.
Any other argument will be blurred to the point of courts ending up in
inevitable knots trying to draw lines where there's nothing to draw a line on
(or with).
Point is, this line exists at the boundary between imagination and reality - yes
I know many minds can't see the difference - but there's nowhere else that it
can be drawn.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
PolR's other works published here include a definition of how computers work for
lawyers and a review of the many cases where the courts, including the Supreme
Court, have stated an opinion based on statements of how computers work which
are completely false.
It is a well known legal principle that court
opinions based on falsehoods are unsafe opinions.
This is a
delightfully concise explanation of how a computer works. The fact that a
processor can only execute instructions to manipulate symbols is
undeniable.
The courts have the law to follow. Patent law says
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
If the court is asked whether a math
algorithm executed by a computer processor is a 'new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof' the legal answer must be 'no'.
If they get
confused and say, 'well, this algorithm flies aeroplanes' they can be asked what
the demonstrable difference in law is between this algorithm and any other. If
the law cannot show what the legally patentable novel concept in the algorithm
is such that it differs from all other algorithms, then the algorithm fails to
meet U.S.C. 35 ยง 101.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
The part you are missing is that this *is* addressing legal terms and the
accepted legal definition of non-patentability. The US Supreme Court has ruled
that algorithms are math, and that algorithms are therefore non-patentable.
The problem is that the Supreme Court made that statement in a complicated
ruling. It was a case of an industrial rubber manufacturing process which
mentioned software in one of the steps. The exact question was whether that
patent could be struck down as invalid "subject matter" for patenting.
The Supreme Court ruled that an industrial manufacturing process *was* valid
subject matter for a patent and therefore the patent *could not* be invalidated
on that basis. The Supreme Court when on to say that for patent purposes any and
all algorithms *must* be treated as familiar prior art, and that the patent as a
whole may still be invalid on the basis of failing the novelty or
non-obviousness requirements for a valid patent. The Supreme Court also
specifically warned that patent lawyers could *NOT* obtain such a patent merely
by adding some insignificant (physical) post solution activity to the patent
claim. Flipping that around a positive form, the court was saying saying that a
patent involving software was only valid when (1) the rest of the patent
involved substantial patentable post-solution physical activity and (2) the rest
of the patent claim satisfied the novelty and non-obviousness requirements even
after treating all of the software as well known prior art.
A lot of people merely looked at the direction of the ruling and concluded that
the Supreme Court upheld software as patentable. They overlooked details of the
ruling, overlooked that crucial fact that the ruling was based specifically on
the fact that the patent was on a physical industrial process which merely
happened to contain software within it, and they overlooked the fact that the
court stated the patent might still be invalid on other grounds.
And the real problem is that a series of lower courts have run down a rabit-hole
to uphold software as patentable, either completely ignoring the Supreme Court's
statements on what is/isn't patentable, or being completely befuddled about
software in general.
All patent lawyers are well aware that mathematics is not patentable, and they
have been taught the "fact" that software *is* patentable. Lower
courts have been upholding software patents, so obviously it's patentable.
Combining those two pieces of knowledge yields the logical result that software
is not math. However that conclusion is invalid, it was reached by essentially
backward reasoning based on an invalid premise. Nonetheless their logic tells
them software is not math, so they almost invariably get trapped constructing
increasingly bizarre logic to argue software somehow isn't math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Patents are legal constructs that deal with technology. If one doesn't
understand the tech, one can't judge a patents validity. Just because a patent
is granted, doesn't mean if should have been granted. The RSA patent should
never have been granted because it _is_ mathematics. No amount of hand waving
and weasel wording can change that. The patent system is broken, because the
majority of lawyers and judges don't understand the tech, and, apparently,
neither does the USPTO.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
Mathematical formulas have never been patentable.
And software happens to be mathematical formulas.
Although the actual patents are on "all mathematical formulas which look
vaguely like this", which is even WORSE.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
The only thing counterproductive here is the number of people
that fail or refuse to recognize the truth. So we have to beat
them over the head with it, as many times and in as many ways
as necessary, until enough people get it.
-----------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
Absolutely not. This is the core of this "software patent" problem.
Everything ELSE muddles the issue.
a) according to law, mathematics is not patentable
b) courts don't understand software is mathematics.
In other words:
a) law can't change laws of nature (doesn't even need to be codified).
b) court defines PI=3 because it does not understand this is a natural constant.
What part of the issue is there to attack but the fatal misunderstanding of the
court?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
