|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
(lurker since ~2009)
If you have to specify an algorithm for a SW patent (as RH suggests), then
someone else can point out that that specific Algorithm is actually Maths:
- And so Patent -> dev/null
- Or not - and if not at least one can look and see if your algorithm infringes
at the earliest stage.
btw
if your algorithm is basically
A
B
C
and someone implements
A
Y
B
C
reverse Y
is that infringing or not?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
It is language!
One thing the pro-software patent folk can't insist is
that it is physical - because that is something they simply can not
prove.
Under any of those
reasons:
Math
Abstract
Communication medium - in other
words: language
It should fail to be patentable subject matter.
I
believe the USPTO - not necessarily the examiners, but definitely management and
the appeals unit - choose not to listen to the Supremes and instead choose to
listen to the Patent Lawyers.
As a result, my message is not intended for
them. It's intended for the Supremes and anyone in Congress willing to consider
what software really is.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|