|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 06:48 PM EST |
I desperately want to construct an argument saying that they can't
have it both ways.
Patentees should not be allowed to have it both
ways. However they can have it either way. If it is clerical, then it is
obvious and not patentable. If it is non-obvious, then working source code
should be required to to meet the disclosure require. Also working source code
should be provided to demonstrate that it is not just an abstract idea.
cc
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 07:04 PM EST |
I think Lemley's paper is close to be the argument you want. he says functional
claiming is patenting the problem instead of the solution. Patent law is meant
to grant rights on solutions, not problems. Logically, if all the value is in
understanding the problem and the specific solution is obvious once the problem
is stated then the patent should not issue. This is a strong legal argument and
it explains why Lemley's views are popular in patent law circles.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
