|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:31 AM EST |
Here's my proposal:
This is a program:
http://geordee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/rubiks-cube-solution.png
(source: http://geordee
.com/blog/2006/09/solving-3x3x3-rubiks-cube/).
It is meant to run on
Human 1.0, but might be compatible with other primates. Now, were it not for the
previous art available, do you really think it ought to be patentable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:39 PM EST |
I think we should also be sending petitions/invites to relevant luminaries.
Linus springs to mind.
The fact of the matter is, that he is, arguably, the most important individual
software developer in human history.
I think if he were to explain just how important Linux, specifically, and FOSS,
generally, is economically and exactly how much of a pain in his arse software
patents and the USPTO's bungling attempts to identify obviousness and prior art
are we might see some impact.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TemporalBeing on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST |
I was kind of thinking the same thing - that perhaps we here at Groklaw should
sponsor one or more people to show up at both events - people that we consider
to be well-versed in the language, such as PoIR.
I don't know what PJ or Mark thinks...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:32 PM EST |
Start with the "executive summary". Outline in point form the various
reasons why software should not be patentable subject matter. For example, 5
points:
- It's math - algorithms, nothing more. No one can point out a
single piece of software that is not dictated by the limitations of the
environment that is not algorithm!
- It's abstract - algorithms you
can do in your mind, with pencil and paper - nothing more. No one can point out
a single algorithm that could not be done with the mind, with pencil and paper.
The only limitation is time, but time as a limitation is not defined in patent
law as a requirement for patent eligibility.
- It's the application
of instructions to a device - nothing more. It's like the instructions your
fingers give the abacus. Or the instructions you give your programmable coffee
pot to have the coffee ready at 6:30 am. No one can show
otherwise.
- It's using the device for nothing more then the device
was built for. Like entering a formula into a calculator. The only way someone
could prove otherwise is to apply it in a greater such as combining the computer
with motors and gyros in order to build a robot! But then, that doesn't alter
the fact that software as applied to the computer is not the same as building a
robot.
- Patent Exhaustion: Once someone is taught how to use a
device (like a calculator, computer), to then use the device in exactly the way
taught (apply formula to calculator, software to a computer) - and no more -
should be considered exhausted from the perspective of
patentability.
Place them in order of ease to elucidate
on.
Then in the body, the argument/discussion session section, lay out
the various discussions in the order in the executive summary.
The simple
truth is:
There are some very sound reasons software should not be protected
from patents.
The fact that no one can actually show (and why they have
to talk in circles) that there's anything more (such as to the fact it's math,
it's abstract, it's using the device for exactly what it was built
for).
And the fact those reasons are all mutually exclusive... they
all, on their own, are sufficient reason.
Should be enough to separate
software from patents.
If the simplest to elucidate on is the concept of
patent exhaustion that I laid out is enough to convince Law makers and the
Supremes - then it should be presented. And if it's presented first - then
it'll be clearly in mind before they get to PolRs authorings on math which is
far more complicated and likely to confuse.
Caveat: I don't fully know
what the Legal concept of patent exhaustion is, this is just a phrase that makes
sense for what I described.
Just my humble opinion/suggestion!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
