|
Authored by: achurch on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
From pages 36-37:
One of the separate opinions in this case,
concurring in part in the judgment, takes aim at this opinion, asserting that
thte system claims here are simply claims to a patent-eligible machine, a
tangible item one can put on one's desk. Machines are unquestionably eligible
for patenting, states the opinion, although the system claims here clearly track
the method claims that the separate opinion concedes are not patent
eligible.
That conclusion is surely correct as an abstract proposition. A
particular computer system, composed of wires, plastic, and silicon, is no doubt
a tangible machine. But that is not the question. The question we must consider
is whether a patent claim that ostensibly describes such a system on its
face represents something more than an abstract idea in legal substance. Claims
to computers were, and still are, eligible for patent. No question should have
arisen concerning the eligibility of claims to basic computer hardware under §
101 when such devices were first invented. But we are living and judging now (or
at least as of the patents' priority dates), and have before us not the patent
eligibility of specific types of computers or computer components, but computers
that have routinely been adapted by software consisting of abstract ideas, and
claimed as such, to do all sorts of tasks that formerly were performed by
humans. And the Supreme Court has told us that, while avoiding confusion between
§ 101 and §§ 102 and 103, merely adding existing computer technology to abstract
ideas—mental steps—does not as a matter of substance convert an abstract idea
into a machine.
I think they (well, at least five out of ten)
get it! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
configuring a computer to run an algorithm is trivial ...
therefore, a patent on software is ... a patent on a trivial application of an
algorithm. Go figure.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
a computer does not itself confer patent eligibility.
I would think
that "adding a computer" in 2013 would be just obvious. I would
also think that
taking a method that would have been not feasible in say 1950
because if would
have taken lot of people to do the work, but is now feasible
because a computer
can replace the many people, is obvious.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|