|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:54 AM EDT |
Even if he believed that putting software in a computer creates a new machine,
he avoids the point that the nature of the software is not specified in detail
such that it can form part of the claims meeting ยง112's requirement to identify
the claimed invention.
That is like saying that putting an unspecified different dough mix in a bread
making machine which has the function of producing a new style of bread
constitutes a patentable new bread-making machine.
As long as he takes Fonar as saying 'just list the functions of the software' he
is essentially saying that you can patent all machines that carry out the
functions no matter how they do it.
It is only narrowed to software on a computer because the patent says so. It
could just as easily be one of Heath Robinsons' machines arranged to carry out a
bounce back function or a swipe to lock function.
So, the expression of abstract ideas can be patented if associated with a
machine. The patents cite a computer. Expression of the abstract ideas on any
computer is infringing. Expression of abstract ideas on television is
non-infringing, because they did not add a television claim.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
This is ancient common law. There is no such thing as "precedent"
when it comes to matters of fact, as opposed to matters of law.
Judges like Rader, and the Court in Allapat, simply had their facts wrong. This
means that the conclusions they drew from those facts... have no value as
precedent and can simply be ignored, as a blanket matter. Sure, IF someone
devised a scheme which "created a new computer", THEN that scheme
would be patentable, but since software does NOT do that, none of the rulings
based on this theory have any legal value.
Most judges don't know enough about the distinction between fact and law to
realize that Allapat does not contain any binding precedents for anyone, based
as it is on a fictional set of facts which never occurs. And Rader doesn't seem
to realize that he's simply got his facts wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
