|
Authored by: jbb on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:15 PM 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?
ISTM it falls into the general category of devices that feed inputs
from the world into a computer and then the computer crunches on that data and
produces real-world outputs. If we take the math formula out of it, I don't see
how the rest of it is patent-worthy. It is now pretty darned obvious that we
can apply computers to almost all process control situations. ISTM they got a
patent for "But we do it with a computer!". That kind of stuff has got
to go or we will never get out of the mess we're in.
It seems to me the
existing rulings are directly contradictory. Either "But we do it with a
computer" is patent-worthy or it is not. Until these direct contradiction
are removed there is no chance to have bright-line rules. Without bright-line
rules we are stuck in the mess we have now and patent Trolls will have continue
to have a great financial incentive to roll the patent litigation dice to the
detriment of us all.
--- 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|