|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 08:19 PM EST |
Most classes of computer memory involve transitory signals, just the thing
classed as not being statutory subject matter. A request for en bank appeal and
Supreme Court Certiorari both denied for In re Nuijten.
Any memory that isn't non-volatile couldn't possibly be classed as adding to a
new machine and even non-volatile memory is a stretch. The classical argument
against a programmed computer being a new machine is a player piano or a
Jacquard loom also embracing non-volatile memory.
You could also question just where your new machine is physically located in the
case of cloud computing, or how many different new machines you have in the case
of preemptive multitasking operating systems operating individual programs on
'virtual machines' (in virtual memory spaces). Likewise a general purpose
computer with multitasking with the presence of software to provide means plus
function revealing an abstract new machine.
The product of a computer is signs and signals, temporary in duration unless
fixated, whereupon you could ask whether or not the printed matter doctrine
shouldn't hold after In Re: Lowry reinforcing Machine or Transformation.
Failing new machine, where's the transformation?
Note that changing magnetic reluctance patterns on the surface of a magnetic
storage device, crystalline structures, or contents of a ion trap in
non-volatile memory lacks novelty.
A computer program isn't patentable subject matter per se. Nor is in all
likelihood the machine it runs on considered novel. Where is the " new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof"? Without which patent infringement can only be
for violating a process claim, which oops!, may lack novelty when 'on a
computer' is the only point of distinction from prior art or worse still lack
distinction from something entirely abstract, a product of the mind using only
aide–mémoire.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
