I would agree completely. In fact I would actually define Software as a 'story
line depiction' about how to solve a problem. One can only write that story if
they themselves understand how one could use pencil and paper to solve that same
problem. Its story essentially conveys a "thought process", which happens to be
in the form of logical operations. This is similar to "turn left at Wallmart, go
three lights, turn right at...place the milk in the shopping cart..."
If
you can't patent a Story Book or a How-To PDF document why can you still patent
a software program? Just because a human is not delivering the answer? Its the
human knowledge that went into developing the story that has value. Its not even
in the delivery of the recording or operation there of. Saving time by the
automated playback/operation (e.g. instruction cycle interpretation) of a Story
should not a patentable any more than automating a bedtime Story Book reading to
your child should be patentable. At least there we can all agree that its the
child that renders cognitive interpretation of the meaning of the story.
--- The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is measured
as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|