|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
In your example, you have a specific device which can claim
a variety of ways to implement one of its actions.
A software mousetrap, however, would not be a specific
device, and the only "embodiment" it would have is the
methods by which it traps virtual mice. Therefore, the
broadness covering its actions serves to cover all of its
existence - since the "trap" has no existence outside of the
method of its action, any broadness in its definition is,
perforce, written against the problem domain.
A software patent can only be described two ways: in terms
of the code used, or in terms of the problems to be solved.
(The first is not done, because it then just becomes a very
expensive copyright.)
You can (and will, doubtless) claim that this is not the
case, but will only succeed to the level that you can
obfuscate this basic fact.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|