|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
The problem I have with Diehr is the reason given for it being
patentable is that the math formula that pertains to making rubber is restricted
to rubber-making applications. What else is the rubber-making formula good for?
The "rubber-making formula" is the Arrhenius Equation - which is
one of the fundamental equations of chemical kinetics. It ties reaction
rates to the temperature of the reaction.
So, it's useful in making rubber,
(and it seems obvious to me, so I don't think it should have been patented) but
it would have been catastrophic if the equation were generally patented because
all chemical manufacturing could have been affected.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 03:06 AM EDT |
... which is why I spoke specifically to the software :)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
"1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded
compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:.."
Take away the computer, and what's left? A generic molding press.
This is a patent for a 'method' that uses a computer to control a machine, in a
specified way. There's nothing new, unique, or inventive in the control
algorithms.
How could this be patentable?
There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of computer controlled machines in the
world, of which perhaps tens of thousands would qualify for patents like Diehr.
Is this the purpose of the patent system, to allow monopolies on each class of
computer controlled systems?
I don't think so.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
