|
|
|
| Authored by: mbouckaert on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:40 PM EST |
I would say (1) and (3).
At the very least these beasts would now be rejected unless
(...), not accepted unless (...).
IMHO this says that software patents should, as a general
rule, not exist; but that there could possibly be exceptions
that look like software patents.
To be accepted, a "SP" would then need to have enough real-
world impact to show that the symbol-manipulation part (the
math, abstract part) is not the topic, but that items like
cost reduction, performance factors, even though they relate
only to the manipulation of symbols, actually change the
field.
IMHO that could result in something like public/private key
encryption to be patentable. Or something like Quicksort.
Or MP3 psychoacoustic encoding.
But for three different reasons, all understandable, none
compelling. More work will be needed there. I see this as
a good starting step.
---
bck[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST |
Then I'd say software is in the clear with the following test that was
suggested:
Is the abstract idea merely described within a particular
environment or is the abstract idea part of an invention that transforms its
environment.
Now the Lawyers will claim a change in the computer,
the "making a new device" argument - but software will never tranform its
environment no matter how much the Lawyers want to claim it does.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 07:12 PM EST |
I see why you are confused. I have trouble extracting Patently-O's
conclusions from that brief, but I'll go with your 2 & 3.
PO claim that the brief is favorable towards patenting
> computerized applications that either improve computer performance,
operating system upgrades patentable?
> use technology in a unique technological way,
ah, you've got me there, like cutting steak with a bread knife?
> or transform the local environment.
This one I get, HVAC and curing rubber surely qualify.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 08:35 PM EST |
One quick read and my impression is that
it's trying to take care of the worst
offenders, the "with a computer" patents.
In that sense, it's positive.
But they are suggesting a case by case
analysis, counting on case law to eventually
figure out a pattern and hence a clearer
line of sorts. But that's about as awful a
solution as I can think of, because it once
again puts the burden on defendants to make
law on their dime. That is kind of the
problem, the one that trolls misuse.
Still, at least they say clearly that the old
ways are not good enough and that something
must be done, that software per se is not
patentable *unless* ... fill in the blanks from
their list.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:15 AM EST |
"The brief generally rejects the idea that software per se represents
patentable subject matter but is favorable toward the patenting of computerized
applications that either improve computer performance, "
I have not yet read the brief, but if the above summary is correct, then they
seem to be saying something strange.
Aside from a class of frivolous applications, such as games screensavers,
applications can be argued to always improve a computers performance.
Mouse The Lucky Dog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
