|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
"I'd rather review the actual opinion rather then a Wiki..."
You appear to have access to Bilski v Kappos. It's in there.
Also, you are free to look up Abele as well.
"but you quote a rather important difference:
...involved signal data representing tangible physical objects, which were
electronically manipulated to provide a screen image of the physical objects...
You (I assume you're the same person) have just provided the evidence to confirm
that your algorithm of calculating wages is still not patent eligible.
Where's the physical in your algorithm of calculating wages?"
I believe the value of wages represent a stack of physical currency. However,
if that's not physical enough for you, change my example to rain fall amounts,
kilos of beans delivered or pixels values of x-ray image data of a physical
object.
The point remains. You are using Abstract differently than the court and the
court is of the opinion that at least some mathematics based solutions to
particular problems are not abstract and are patent eligible.
"As I said, unless you wish to try and prove your algorithm is
less-like-math - and not totally abstract - it's not patent eligible."
see above.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
