|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
I think you now see where the problem is.
Patent lawyers don't patent algorithms or code. They patent the physical
execution using arguments of the kind you are bringing up. This turns the
patentability of software into a word game. If the claim uses words directed to
mathematics or code, the claim is rejected as non patentable. But if the lawyer
uses different words and is directed to the physical effect on the computer of
running the software, then it is patentable. Both language claim the same
software and patent the same thing. But still, one type of words leads to
rejection while the other gets a patent. This is how we get software patents and
patents on math.
We have to solve a difficult problem. How do we tell patents on genuinely
patentable processes from patents on software and math based on word games?
Where should the courts and the USPTO draw the line? It will be impossible to
convince the courts to get rid of software patents unless we should them how to
solve this problem.
I say the way to tell the difference is to use the distinctions semioticians are
making. We have to use their concepts and vocabulary.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
After all, you include a printer in it!
That is the problem we keep having. That certain people refuse to see. Software
is the *instructions* that tell the printer *what* to print. As soon as you
bring hardware (INCLUDING the ALU) we are no longer in the realm of software.
But as soon as we take software out of the mix, your example leaves us with
"a computer with a printer attached".
So we have "a computer with a printer attached" - prior art. We add to
that a list of instructions - maths - a software program - and we claim that the
result is a new patentable invention?
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
