|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
And Congress removes the "per se" to create "Software is not
patentable.".
And then all those Patent Lawyers will argue what seems to
be the current meme:
First of all, there are no software patents. Instead
there are method patents.
I think they said that about math too - until
they decided pointing to the patents that have been granted was a great example
of math being patentable.
Then - perhaps then - Congress will realize
they've allowed abstract concepts (or "methods") to be patented and why that's a
very, very bad idea.
And, sorry, I think maybe their salary depends
on them believing the physicality of the process.
Sadly, that's why
I believe speaking to the:
Software Patent
Lawyers
USPTO
Federal Circuit Judges
are a wasted effort.
There's a lot of money for Patent Lawyers tied up in the illusion. That's a
rather large incentive to continue to maintain the illusion.
I think
that's one of the reasons why Patent Lawyers representing companies are so
reluctant to argue that software is non-patentable subject matter.
With
no one stating the clarity of the situation - it's harder for Congress/Supremes
to see the light we're trying to present.
But.... the Supremes have been
known to read BLOGs. And so I keep presenting this rather clear
solution:
point to the physical form
in the hopes the idea will get
accross and they'll ask that very question some time in a case. And if they do
- they may be inclined to give a very blanket statement:
Laws Of Nature,
Math and Software are not patentable subject matter!
And once it becomes
non-patentable subject matter - if a Patent Lawyer creates a "method patent",
can it be applied to a claim against a software implementation? I hope
not!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
My perception may be a little bit simplified, but what appears to me to have
happened is that the current mess did not start out this way. It evolved.
The USPTO seemingly started out agreeing to a great extent that software was
abstract, and resisted the idea of issuing patents for many of those
"inventions." But then those decisions were appealed to places like
the CAFC. The USPTO lost cases on appeal in which they did not think that their
original decisions were wrong, but the original decisions were reversed, and the
USPTO was, pretty much, ordered to change its mind about the particular case
and, clearly, any similar case in the future. What would you do if you were in
charge of an office like that and some judges keep on reversing your decisions?
Sorry, I can not give one of these learned and detailed proofs by citing
precedent and quoting from or paraphrasing the seminal court cases by name, but
this is definitely my overall impression.
What has changed now is that the problem has obviously gotten so bad that
everyone notices. It has been very good for raising the consciousness of the
Supreme court among others, and now we have them paying attention and we have
lots of voices raised in favor of fixing the broken patent system. But to say it
was all the fault of the USPTO in the first place is somewhat of an
oversimplification.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
