|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
You are correct in that example, and I am largely talking about hardware. I'm
also talking about the wording of the ruling here however which isn't solely
considered with software but how the ruling could affect other patents as well,
presumably including hardware. Directing radiation into a computer could
theoretically make the "computer" part important and this does need to
be acknowledged. In general I am also talking about both software though. using
a similar example to my previous one, the ISS taking advantage of the radiation
already hitting it's computers to generate truly random numbers could be just as
valid as the previous example, and this might be theoretically possible to do
using a purely software based solution on the existing computers (I can't say I
am familiar with the ISS's set up, so the ISS itself might be a bad example, but
there are probably some spaced-based computers that this would work for).
The terms laid out in the quote seem quite a sensible limitation on how software
patents are limited to me, as long as they are applied correctly (in situations
where courts understand what software is). I personally fail to see any examples
in which these terms are to broad in their limitation, allowing 'normal
software' patents to get through, but they do still leave the patent system open
for the event that someone comes up with something truly innovative that uses a
computer in a weird (non-mathematical) way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|