|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 05:26 PM EST |
But that's not how a lot of software patent attorney's or the Federal Circuit
Judges see it.
And that's exactly my point:
Your definition, as it
stands, does not eliminate the general purpose computer from the
equation.
Therein lies the problem with treating the abstract as the
physical:
Because you have to twist logic in order to treat the abstract
(which is not supposed to be patentable subject matter) as the physical: the
same twisted logic can equally, logically be applied to any software/hardware
combination including the general purpose computer.
I wait patiently for
the day when the Supremes realize software does not exist in physical form and
never will.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 23 2013 @ 08:01 PM EST |
So if i took the algorithm and re wrote it to work with say a standard graphics
card cuda api, if possible, i would then be using a general purpose device
within a general purpose computer running my tweeked algorithms to achieve real
time ray tracing. But in such a scenario, could i not be seen to be infringing
on the patent even though i am not using the 'patented' ray tracing hardware
itself (presumably some specialist ASIC on a board)?
And this is the crux of what confuses me. SCOTUS seems to state that algorithms
aren't patentable subject matter but there is no clear direction as to when a
patentable machine is just that, a physical embodiment of the patented
application (the document filed with the USTPO). All this is compounded by
patent documents that provide little information to those skilled in the art
allowing them to implement the patented discovery once the monopoly period
expires. Not much of a fair social bargain in my view!
And that which previously required specialist hardware that few could afford and
likely resulted in a many commercial non starts due to product pricing issues
would at some later time be possible by some kid in a garage using powerful
general purpose computers and lots of maths! So it seems to me that many
patented developments using software are only possible because of the
development of the general purpose computing hardware and it's ability to
process data very quickly allowing one to do something in real time that
previously took years via paper, pen and ones mind (or very costly specialized
hardware).
So it seems that the best moral fit for protecting ones software development
lies with copyright law but that does not provide the teeth desired by the many.
To me patents just seem the wrong method to protect software and having many
companies asking for something that is fundamentally wrong does not make it
right.
I guess greed has no bounds. And power and greed make great bedfellows.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|