|
|
|
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
The logic thus far coming from the courts says that software
running on a general purpose computer changes that general
purpose machine into a specific machine, rendering the software
patentable.
When I load something in my truck, it does not change the
nature of the truck. When I put a load of dirt in my partner's
car trunk, it does not change that car into a truck. It is
still a car but it has dirt in the trunk.
A computer is the same as any other object, it's nature is not
changed by the use it is put to. In fact a general purpose
computer continues doing general purpose operations. At any one
time, there are hundreds of small programs running continuously
to maintain all the systems in a general purpose computer.
When a program is run, it does not stop other programs from
running, it is added to the list of active processes. Other
processes are unaffected by the new software. How can a general
purpose computer be changed into a specific machine if it
continues to do general purpose operations? That doesn't make
sense.
So for the appeals courts, please in future remember to add
'faerie dust' to the computer because that is the only way it
is going to magically transform into a specific machine.
I know it's just a legal concept and they don't believe the
computer physically changes, but legal concepts aren't
patentable either.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
