|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 06:40 AM EDT |
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bilski patent never says 'use a computer'. Whenever I asserted that the
Bilski process was a computer process I was shouted down because the claims did
not include 'on-a-computer'.
The fact is that the process requires speedy gathering of quotes, utilities'
energy objectives and other data and the subsequent complex and extensive
statistical analysis necessary to make the profitable energy hedging investment
decisions.
Even with a university full of math professors and/or trained chimpanzees it
would be impossible to carry out the process and make the investments in a
timely manner without passing most of the process to a computerised system.
The Supreme Court found that, even though the process had horribly complicated
math, was dreadfully difficult and could not be successfully done with a pencil
and paper, the process was abstract ideas and not patentable subject matter.
They took time out to re-assert that 'the prohibition against patenting abstract
ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a
particular technological environment'.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
