I have some questions for you. Is logic useful? Why would putting
operations of logic in a computer make them
patentable?
Computers are good at performing operations
that the human brain is ill equipped in performing. Tasks that involve
examination of many details such as the sorting a list of emails by one of many
attributes.
My position is that the ability for computer logic to cause
a machine to organize information in a way that assists its user is just as bit
an advancement in technology as the invention of a machine that picks cotton
seeds of of cotton fiber.
I support that position by pointing out that
before computer based information system, such information was held in filing
cabinets that required a person to file information according to some
preselected index. Those tasks have since become redundant because of the
productivity that computer based systems has introduced.
That productive
effort is a result of computer software that has modified machine
characteristics in a useful way. I believe there are other such advancements to
be enjoyed that are worthy of being patented since such advancements can present
a novel way for a computer to manipulate and present information that people can
find beneficial. The innovative efforts put into software development should be
protected from others who would simply copy an idea.
That being said, some
measure of criteria needs to be used to gauge how software modifies machine
properties so that algorithms don't qualify for patents. What I believe is
interesting to patent needs to manifest itself as discernible machine
characteristics with real world utility, ei characteristics which expand the
machines capacity to provide usefulness to the user which are otherwise beyond
the capacity of the machine. Obviously this idea needs baking; what
enhancements are to be classified as useful, how to measure usefulness, how do
define the machine...
In my opinion, the utility of a stored
program computer is analogous to the utility of a printing press. It does not
depend on the contents. There is a mathematical basis to the notion that an
algorithm is a form of logic. Also there is a technological basis to the notion
that the hardware is independent from the contents. Perhaps this address your
question?
Agreed. The components of the printing press
perform their job in accordance to the mathematical model they are based on in a
unison that results in the production of newspapers or magazines. Here are my
considerations about this issue.
The distinction between software and
contents must be made. It's actually the structure of content that is mated with
the software. Obviously its not useful to try and manipulate gif structured
images with software designed for jpg data.
We may agree that a video codec
is an example of a stored program and could qualify for one or more patents? It
is an example of a software bundle. Does enhance the machine and solve an
information problem related to video?
Should the structure of a file
processed by the video codec constitute a component of that patent? Is it not
something organizational? Does it provide a real world benefit? Does the
design of the structure qualify as logic that enhances the characteristics of
the computer in a useful way to the user? If another video codec was developed
that utilized the same structure, are the characteristics of the structure a
determining factor in the novelty of the new codec?
I'm inclined to say that
content structure may be apart of a software patent but not a patent in itself,
regardless of its novel design because content structure is something completely
theoretical; it hasn't been manifested into the world beyond that of pure
mathematics. The users experience is only enhanced by content structure once
that structure is filled with data. And what is interesting about the structure
is not of itself, but the user content. In that way, the structure is more
useful as an aspect of the machine than as an aspect of the user
experience.
Should a novel new filesystem be patentable? It's an example of
a data structure and certain aspects of the filesystem do become part of the
user experience. Or is it the software driver that should be considered as
novel? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
