|The Lodsys patents are more specific than the VAX stuff, as |
I understand them. But if not, then great, easier to
invalidate them. Like I said, everything is obvious.
Mark Lemley is pushing the idea about one solution v. every
solution. This works in some cases, but not in many of them.
First, you have process patents, which comprise the steps of
x, y, z. The solution is the steps - how you perform the
steps is not that relevant. Second, even for structure, with
the more simple patents, the solution was the same then as
now: a CPU, a memory, a storage device containing program
instructions to do x, y, z. (nevermind that this is not a
new machine, I get that)
So, you are right, it IS a problem with software patents,
but it's a problem with every patent, and saying that we
will limit folks to just THEIR solution won't be good
enough. You would have to limit them to just their code
(like copyright) but patent law just doesn't work that way.
And that creates a problem. Solve once, infringe many.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]