That's part of what's additionaly bothered me about patenting
software:
How long before the Lawyers realize that programming software is
no different then simply using the software that's available on the computer and
they start trying to use all their built up Legal precedence to go after the
users of the software and not just the developers?
The acts are exactly the
same. No different. Programming your VCR is the exact same abstract
concept.
If programming a computer really should be patentable subject
matter then setting the clock on your VCR is also - by the nature of being the
exact same abstract act - patentable subject matter.
I don't believe for
an instance the Supremes would allow that if it was clearly placed in front of
them. I also hope such a clear example placed in front of the Federal Circuit
would wake them up too.
I'm not sure the Supremes recognized that in
Benson the software played the role of the human if the human were
to:
Constantly take temperature readings
Use the temperature
readings for a new calculation of time based on the previous data using a
calculator/sliderule
When the time calculation met the current time
lapse, popped the lid
But I think the Supremes were right. I can't say if
they think they were right for the same reason I think they were. But I think
that the whole process as a mechanical - the computer being part of it replacing
the human - became a new "whole device" which is why it was appropriate
patentable subject matter.
It's like:
A: Building a robot out of
Leggo kinetic and moving the robot around with your hand
Then
B: You
add a motor at the appropriate spot and turn it on/off for basic
movements
Then
C: You add a control device (a computer) that you can
program with simple commands to have the robot walk around, walk in a circle,
walk in a square pattern, etc
The software to move your little robot isn't
patentable subject matter because it's abstract.
It's nothing more then
our interpretations of instructions delivered to the device via basic electrical
signal which then moves in a pattern we recognize.
But the addition of
the control device to the robot makes a "new device" separate from the "previous
device".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
