|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
My suggestion: Review the opinion as though the context was a process of
"apply formula x to a calculator" and see what happens.
Choose the most
complicated formula you are fairly familiar and comfortable with. It could be
as something as "calculate the change you should receive on a purchase", a
little more complicated like "calculate the compound interest payments" or
significantly more complicated.
The object is to choose the most
complicated formula that you know well so that you don't have to think about the
formula itself - but only about how the discussion of Law will aply to
it.
Then try the exact same review with the simplest formula: "add 1 and
3 together using a calculator".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
"That is only true if the invented method is not one of the judicial
exclusions. Otherwise, claims drawn to a system are not transformed into
statutory subject matter."
Assume that the a method is claimed only in the abstract (that is not the case
here as very particular shadow accounts are set up and manipulated, which is not
required in the abstract idea of "escrow"; but I digress). The
assertion is that the claim is abstract.
If there is next claim to a physical machine, one can no longer assert that the
invention is abstract. What is claimed is clearly something physical, concrete.
It is absurd to assert that a machine is abstract.
Of course, this ignores that fact that this test for abstractness is itself, not
in the statute, but is itself nothing but nonsense asserted by some other court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
My understanding is that the term "process" was substituted for the
word "art" in Section 101 back in the 1930s. This suggests that
Congress may not have had in mind information processing when choosing their
phraseology, but instead were thinking only of processes which resulted in the
production or modification of a material, substance, or machine.
The idea of granting patents upon the processing of information (i.e., an
abstraction that is not physically manifested), regardless of when it was
adopted, is misguided and destined to failure. It is illogical to disallow
patents on abstract concepts and yet allow the patenting of processes that
result in abstract concepts. Doing so would result in such incongruities as not
being able to patent a fictional story but being able to patent the process of
creating a fictional story.
The fact that the USPTO and some courts have been recognizing patents upon
information processing (e.g., software, business methods) is the main reason the
patent system is in such a mess.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
The correct interpretation of the section 101 phrase is to apply "of
matter" to all the elements in the comma string, so that this:
"process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter"
means:
"process of matter, machine of matter, manufacture of matter, or
composition of matter".
This really clears up a lot of the ambiguity and makes it clear that abstract
ideas were always supposed to be excluded.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
