|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
I agree that broad (and therefore non-specific) does not imply vague, or vice
versa, but for software patents, I'd say the two are quite hard to distinguish
and tend to overlap. To a programmer, neither an overly broad nor a vague
description contains enough detail to implement what was patented, and neither
should be allowed. A broad patent covers an idea, and a vague patent attempts to
cover the lack of an idea.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles888 on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
"... They were written broadly because the inventors believed
they had invented something that could be implemented a great
many ways...."
Since you claim they see this broad invention implemented in
"many ways", they should state what these many ways are
supposed to be. Otherwise, they are laying claim to what
they never invented, and that is a major problem.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court said in Diamond v. Chakrabarty:The Committee
Reports accompanying the 1952 Act inform us that Congress intended statutory
subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by
man."...
This is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits or that it
embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract
ideas have been held not patentable.
What you describe is not an
invention made by man, but the functions of an invention that could be made by
man. The rest of the statute makes it quite clear that the inventor must make
clear the means by which the functions are carried out and which functions plus
means constitutes his invention, before the invention can be
patented.
The law states that an inventor cannot patent every possible
means of making the invented functions, because a patentable invention is only
one means.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Like all interesting claims here, it would be helpful if you would provide a
link to an example.
Otherwise someone like me might think you were pulling this out of your, um,
spleen.
That said, I will agree that "vague" is the wrong word.
"Obfuscated" might be a better term, because the patent lawyers
replace programming terms of art with invented terminology.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
