|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
In spite of all the juicy bits, I keep remembering this:In
particular, Mr. Ginsberg [an expert witness for Alice] explained the operation
of Alice’s systems and methods and opined that a person of skill in the art
reading the asserted patents would conclude that the claimed inventions must be
implemented electronically using “some type of computing processor and memory.”
(Ginsberg Decl)
That begs the question 'which art?'. To someone
skilled in secure financial transactions of the sort in the patent, I suppose it
is obvious that the invention would only work with the addition of a magic
computer.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
An algorithm is a list of instructions intended to achieve a particular aim.
A process is the act of following an algorithm to achieve the said aim.
A processor is a machine that enacts a process.
The first is clearly not patentable subject matter, and clearly includes all
software. The last clearly is patentable subject matter. Where the middle one
fits in, I don't quite know. But I suspect that confusion is because my
definition of process is not the definition in law. I don't think my definition
of process should be patentable subject matter, because that would include
"business methods" and all that sort of stuff.
But if you want a bright line, you could do worse than oblige the USPTO to
classify where on this grid each claim lies. It would also make a lot of the
lawyers' word games rather unproductive.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
