... and the solution is purely in interpreting the signals, then:
since
it's pure abstraction - something that can be done with the human mind - it's
not patent eligible subject matter
And it shouldn't be. Because the
purpose is to promote the sciences:
Exchange knowledge to the public for a
limited monopoly on the specific implementation1 of an
invention
That is supposed2 to mean that people can think and
process the information freely. The Supremes3 themselves have said
that if it can be done with pencil and paper it's not patent eligible.
So
if the hardware already exists, and you can take the information (such as with
the telegraph key) and write out the pattern of information - it's not patent
eligible subject matter. And anyone that programs knows that what you can do
with software, you can do with pencil and paper. Whether you can do so in a
timely manner is quite moot with regards the point of whether something is
patentable subject matter.
1: In my humble opinion the patent system has
been perverted by those Patent Lawyers willing to abuse the system and get
patents they know should not have been granted. It's quite telling those same
individuals point to the Legal precedents they themselves had a hand in creating
- which the Supreme's have not reviewed - in order to give a different
impression of the Law that is the opposite of the clear statements the Supremes
are making.
2: I say "supposed" in the context of patent eligibility
because there are Patent Lawyers who insist math is patentable even though the
Supremes keep saying it's not. And because the Supremes keep
saying it's not, those same Lawyers keep obfuscating what they're patenting and
using word games in order to get around the actual Patent Laws and how they are
supposed to be applied. From Mayo vs Prometheus:
While a scientific
truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a
novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth
may be.
I understand this to mean: you build a mousetrap with the
scientific knowledge of physics, while you can't patent the scientific
knowledge, you can patent that mousetrap.
The Court pointed out that
the basic mathematical equation, like a law of nature, was not
patentable.
The Court, as in Diehr, pointed out that
the basic mathematical equation, like a law of nature, was not
patentable.
Finally, in Benson the Court considered the
patentability of a mathematical process for converting binary-coded decimal
numerals into pure binary numbers on a general purpose digital computer. The
claims “purported to cover any use of the claimed method in a general-purpose
digital computer of any type.” 409 U. S., at 64, 65. The Court recognized that
“‘a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific
truth’” might be patentable. Id., at 67 (quoting Mackay Radio, 306 U. S., at
94).But it held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical
machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that
principle.
I understand that to mean "if all you've done is
interpret the signal differently, it's not patentable". So if all you've done
is use the exact same hardware in order to interpret a different radio signal,
in my humble opinion:
According to what the Supremes have stated, if my
understanding is correct: it's not patent eligible subject matter
3: In
order to cite the Supremes and the pencil/paper statement I took a read through
both Bilski and Mayo vs Prometheus. I couldn't find my reference so I'll have
to do more research to find where the Supremes authored that opinion to support
my statement. I know I read it in one of their decision of the last few
years.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
