|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Missing in Topic 3 are the aspects of clearly defining patents. I
thought that may people commented on the fact that software patents should be
more expressive of the software implementation.
The USPTO has
expressly asked this question. Groklaw has answered it
separately.
In Topic 4 you are missing the aspects from the Mayo
ruling where there was the view that a combination of unpatentable ideas may in
fact be patentable. If such a combination is patented then do you have to have
just that specific combination to infringe? Also, can software patents be valid
as part of some new physical machine like a self- ware robot?
This
is basic patent law. All elements of a claim are required to infringe. For the
physical machine question, it is addressed in this paragraph:
If
nothing has been invented but thoughts in the mind of human beings, we should
not be able to claim a sign-vehicle expressing these ideas as if they were
applications of the ideas. But when the real thing denoted by the expression is
claimed, we may have a patentable invention. For example a mathematical
calculation for curing rubber standing alone is not patentable under this test.
It is just numbers letting a human think about how rubber should be cured. But
when the actual rubber is cured the referent is recited and the overall process
taken as a whole may be patentable. These ideas lead to this
test.
So it depends whether the physical machine is new and
nonobvious when the interpretants are filtered out.
I am not sure to what
extent self-awareness is a physical element of a robot. Can we patent
intelligence and consciousness? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
