|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 05:03 PM EST |
"The software was not patented. The rubber curing process
was."
Right. But slightly different software on exactly the same hardware could give
you a completely different rubber curing process, perhaps different enough to be
called a different machine.
Or a compression algorithm could let you provide 512 phone calls using the same
bandwith that previously allowed 2.
Or another compression algorithm could let you store 20 hours of movie on a
standard DVD.
All math. All algorithm. Coupled with other stuff that gives real physical
results.
I would not be displeased, but I would be extremely surprised, if the Supreme
Court draws the line at the same place that PolR does.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST |
Not so. Here's the exact wording, and as you will see,
the process included the software, and it was patented in that process
setting:
(b) While a mathematical formula, like a law of
nature, cannot be the subject of a patent, cf. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63
; Parker v. [450 U.S. 175, 176] Flook, 437 U.S. 584 , respondents do not seek
to patent a mathematical formula, but instead seek protection for a process of
curing synthetic rubber. Although their process employs a well-known
mathematical equation, they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation,
except in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. A
claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory
simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital
computer. Respondents' claims must be considered as a whole, it being
inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore
the presence of the old elements in the analysis. The questions of whether a
particular invention meets the "novelty" requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102 or the
"nonobviousness" requirements of 103 do not affect the determination of whether
the invention falls into a category of subject matter that is eligible for
patent protection under 101. Pp. 185-191.
(c) When a claim containing a
mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process
which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent
laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a
different state or thing), then the claim satisfies 101's requirements. Pp.
191-193. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
