|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
and is therefore patentable.
Just because I invent a nifty math formula does not make it patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
Abstract ideas and math algorithms are judicial exclusions from patent
eligibility.
The various constructs in software can be very clever and ingenious. They can be
exceedingly novel and very useful. It takes a great mind to write great
software. However, each and every part of written software is an abstract
concept. The software executed by the computer is always a series of machine
code instructions which contain no hint of the abstract ideas used to generate
them.
The installing of software in a computer also fails the word of the law. U.S.C.
35 says that 'Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.".
Installing software on a computer is not a 'new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter' and is not a new and useful improvement
to a computer when viewed as a patentable machine. The computer machine is not
changed by the installation of software such that it is eligible under the law
as an improved machine.
All abstract ideas, scientific discoveries of laws of nature and math algorithms
are excluded from patent eligibility by the law. Only when the USPTO fails to
follow the word of the law can they award patents on software, abstract ideas
and math algorithms.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Avioding compilation isn't difficult...compiling Perl, a normally interpreted
language, at least most of it, is quite reasonable. Translating specifications
to code, thatnis more complicated...you still end up writing in code, or
losing flexibility, even if we are talking SQLs (structured Query Languages)
So I want to read the patent.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
