|
|
|
| Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 02:28 AM EST |
Your protests to the contrary, it is emphatically the
province and duty of the Judicial Department the judicial
branch to say what the law is and so far they disagree with
you; many software patents have been, are being, and should
be issued.
As it happens I personally hate and despise the notion of
patents in general, and software patents in particular. I
have no interest in advancing the cause of the opposition.
But there is no percentage in refusing to face reality.
Those who would eliminate software patents as being abstract
have a problem: the US Constition's IP clause explicitly
permits "processes", which are abstract. There is a tension
between that and statute (USC) where it's specified that
abstract ideas can't be patented.
SCOTUS in 1972 resolved that by saying computer software
can't be patented, but was promptly subverted by the lower
courts. So it's still a live issue, and asserting that US
law doesn't allow software patents is simply wrong, with
plenty of decisions to prove otherwise.
Consider as counterexample Roger Schafly's patent on a
particular number, with software enabling its use in
cryptography. There is no associated hardware.
Schafly, by the way, is a patent agent registered with the
USPTO who heads up an anti-software-patent organization. You
are welcome to believe that the argument presented here is
"wet dream logic"; but the likes of Schafly shares it.
I'd dearly love to believe that "The way the law is
currently stated, software should not be patentable".
Between law school and my Math degree I've come to the
opposite conclusion, at least in respect of US law.
---
Grumpy old man[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
