|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 02:17 AM EDT |
| I agree with you that a patent for the use of that equation in general would
have been catastrophic. Still, it seems like they were able to patent the idea
of applying that equation to the rubber-making process which is silly. The
decision was made more than 30 years ago. I think the technical landscape has
changed drastically in those 30 years. Computers have gone from being a novelty
to being ubiquitous. I think the decision was a mistake 30 years ago but the
precedent it sets is becoming a catastrophe. As long as it stand it prevents in
any bright-line rules regarding software patents.
As long as people are able
to patent pure information processing (even when restricted to a specific
setting) then no one will know for sure if any given software patent is valid or
not, This uncertainty fuels the patent Trolls. The simple, bright-line rule
should be that pure information processing is not patentable. There are two
problems with Diehr. First, if you remove the information processing from the
device then IMO it is clearly not patentable. It is completely obvious and
routine. Second, and perhaps worse, is the patent still covers the pure
information processing part of the device. Others can't use that same algorithm
for processing rubber. This borks the bright-line rule that algorithms can't
be patented.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
If it is the Arrhenius Equation then it has been known for about 100 years. Why
was it not thrown out for prior art ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
The original invention of curing natural rubber required considerable
experimentation with temperatures and proportions of sulphur to rubber. It
fitted the Constitutional principle of an experimenter spending time, resources,
knowledge and skill to come up with a patentable manufacture or substance.
Since the Arrhenius Equation is a statement of a law of nature, then it should
not have been monopolised by the Diehr invention when used for the curing of
rubber. The fact that the Diehr process was for the production of precision,
cured, rubber components then I suspect that there was more than the application
of the Arrhenius Equation to curing of rubber involved in the complete
invention.
I have not read the patent, but I could see that it might still be on the cusp
of validity.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
