To give an example in the form of Mr. Quinn:
He likes to say math is
patentable - because he can reword something so it's not so obvious to those who
get lost in the complexities of language and "technical" things that it's still
math
He likes to speak of the application of rejecting patents via
obviousness - but then he's willing to obfuscate what the actual invention is so
it's no longer obvious while at the same time claiming nothing is obvious -
"everything is obvious in hindsight, so it must not have been obvious", "if it
was obvious, why was no one doing it before?"
I've seen this in discussions
he's been part of where he'll push the extra length immediately even as someone
simply tries to understand his current perspective. He seems to give a
micro-meter now.... but later he'll offer up other arguments that not only takes
away that micro-meter, it'll fight for even more for the IP
protectionism.
There is no compromise in such a situation. The end
result will be that - as he is aiming for - everything is patentable including
math.
As a side-note, I'm part of group 1, but not part of that group. I
strongly believe software should not be patentable. But not because it's math
(it is math, but that's not my core reason).
I believe part of the
concept of patent exhaustion (if it's not legally part of it already) is that
patents can not apply to the exact use of an object.
You purchase a
calculator. The use of that object is to push the buttons forming math formulas
as entry into the object. As a result - you can not patent any process fitting
the form "push the buttons in pattern XyZ and read the result" as applied to the
calculator. At least, Patent Law should clearly state that concept if it does
not. The pen is patentable (in it's time) but using it to author symbols that
become language for your biography or short story or whatever should be
precluded by patent exhaustion.
The more advanced the calculator, the
more knowledge someone needs to have in order to use said calculator - but that
doesn't change the fact it's still a calculator.
That includes advanced
programmable calculators which have basic logic structures you can use so
instead of having a single formula for calculating simple interest, you can plug
in all formulas so any 3 of the 4 values will give you the fourth.
A
computer that software is applied to is nothing more then an advanced
programmable calculator on mega steroids.
To apply software to a computer
is exactly the same as applying a formula to a calculator. For the same reason
that you are using something for exactly what it was built for and nothing more.
Patent exhaustion should automatically apply - software is the basic use of the
patented invention (the computer) and is therefore not patentable subject
matter.
Could it be part of a bigger process where that bigger process as
a whole could be patentable? Sure - someone creates a robot that includes a
computer for controls - yea, the robot as a whole can be patentable. But not
the software that controls the robot!
My point to this is:
There is
more then one solid, sound reason that software should not be
patentable!
It's an OR discussion at that point for us. Any one reason
should be sufficient to the Law Makers and Law Enforcers and we get a clear
statement that software is not patentable.
Meanwhile - the opposing side
has to argue against all of those reasons so none of them are valid in order to
win.
We stop pointing out all these reasons software should not be
patentable - and they win!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
