The idea is supposed to be immediately disseminated to the public domain for
immediate study and use - without cost.
The specific implementation of an
idea is supposed to be what can be protected for exclusive
rights.
Example:
The idea of a mouse trap - a trap specifically
designed to catch mice - is the idea that is immediately disseminated to the
public.
meanwhile:
The specific implementation of a spring-loaded
design is what qualifies for
patent protection.
That's why allowing patents on abstract concepts
actually breaks with what the patent exchange is supposed to be:
Instead of
protection a specific implementation - a patent on an abstract concept protects
the idea!
Software is nothing more then a language. It's a means of
communication like any other language with it's particular structure used for
it's particular purposes. And like any other language: it's an abstract concept
that can be done in the mind.
The application of "software to hardware"
is nothing more then a particular flow of a pattern of electricity through a
device. Absolutely no different then the flow of electricity through the
telegraph key. If one can patent "specific software as applied to the computer"
then there is absolutely no reason why one couldn't patent "specific pattern of
morse code as applied to the telegraph key".
I think once the Supremes
understand that undeniable truth, patents on software will die. Because I
believe the Supremes would never allow anyone to patent a particular message in
morse.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
