|
|
|
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
Great. I was serious when I said we need one. Also, I hope that I have been
helpful in providing a start.
Another topic:
The document mentions
"This erroneous physical view of the computer is the basis of an
oft-stated
argument. Some claim that software alters the computer it runs on. This is
used to justify the view that software patents are actually a subcategory of
hardware patents."
I am not sure if it would be relevant to the current preparation of questions
and talking points designated specifically for the USPTO. But I distinctly
remember reading recently (in reading articles about recent CAFC or SCOTUS
decisions that this doctrine gets mentioned as a "legal fiction" which
is somehow helpful to the esteemed judges in interpreting patents.
From the fact that the words "legal fiction" are now used, I get the
impression that there has been some beginning of retreat by the judges about
this. I infer that the blistering criticism to which this "doctrine"
has already and deservedly been subjected has already had some effect.
But if the idea that "software makes a new machine" was odious when
advanced as a factual explanation, it is even more odious a when maintained as a
"legal fiction" in order to make the unpatentable to be patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
I just came back to check if PolR answered my question (a few posts above this
one). He did, and he also says that the next version is completed. Well, I sent
mine, too, because I had just finished up with it. Perhaps you and PolR would
like to look at it for a comparison with your work.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
