|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
In actual software patents, the machines are not specified *because the software
was never implemented* -- this is *failure to reduce to practice*, if I remember
the technical term. They are also over-broad, which is *patenting something you
didn't invent*, which has its own technical term.
This is all on top of the fact that the machine patents are based on an
incorrect theory of how computers work (a matter of fact). And on top of the
fact that the processes patented are entirely abstract (no specific
transformation of matter).
And on top of THAT, the patents fail to disclose. And I could go on and on
listing the ways in which software patents are invalid.
What's astounding is that any of them were ever permitted. They fail in every
way possible. They fail 101 on all three counts (laws of nature, abstract
ideas, natural phenomena), they fail 102, they fail 103, they fail 104, they
fail 105, they fail EVERYTHING.
What's actually happened is that the patent lawyers have been playing a shell
game. When someone nails them for failure to comply with one provision of the
patent law they jump over to a different interpretation of the patent... and
they repeat, in a loop, so that people don't notice that they fail to comply
with ANY provisions of the patent law, apart from the "pay your fees"
provision.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
