|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
So according to that logic I can patent a karate move then. It's also a series
of steps.
Sigh, I hate patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
I read §101 as saying you can obtain a patent on an improvement to a known
machine that makes it do what it does, better.
So what does a general purpose computer do? Does installing software in it make
it do it better? If it does, then an improved machine has been made and may be
patentable.
A general purpose computer executes software instructions held in installed
software programs. Building new instructions into the computer processor with
microcode could make it run programs better.
Installing a program that is executed by the known instruction-set of a known
general purpose computer fails the requirements of §101 because the computer
does not do what it does any better after installing and running the software.
§100 says that a process or a method using a known machine might be patentable
subject matter. The process or method does not make the machine better, but is
enabled by the known machine.
It is the use of the process or method in order to achieve significant
post-process activity that is protected. In Flook, the Supreme Court said that
they saw no prize of a row of precision, rubber ducks post the patented,
computer-based process and therefore the patent was invalid.
I thought that methods, processes and improved machines could be brought
together into one argument: the improved golf swing. The post-process activity
could be a greater number of holes-in-one. Has the known golf club machine been
improved by the new method? No. So making and selling the golf club, even if its
specialist features are essential to the improved swing, does not infringe on
the method. If the manufacturers promote the use of their club with the improved
swing, they could be inducing infringement of the method.
The improved swing is based on a knowledge of human physiology and the laws of
motion. The new swing method might not be intuitive and may be the result of
many years of analysis and experimentation. Does it pass §101? It would not be
the first new swing method to be awarded a patent, as PJ recently pointed out.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
... but it's still an abstract process :)
It hasn't moved from being a
process that can be done totally in the mind.
You could author software
to display the process of making a pot of coffee and pouring a cup.... but if
you didn't hook external hardware up to that process - you still won't have a
drinkable cup of coffee.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Wasn't that - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
