The full quote:
stakeholders remain concerned about patents with
overly broad claims — particularly in the context of
software
They're speaking of overly broad claims - not the fact
that software is totally abstract.
Lemley has been pointing out for
quite some time that the broadness of software patents almost certainly violates
the 1952 Patent Act's prohibition on so-called "functional
claiming."
It'll be interesting to see when they manage to
eventually realize that:
specific claiming on software is not patentable
because it claims specific algorithms
and
broad claiming on software
violates functional claiming
together equate to:
software is not
patentable*
So long as they keep trying to wave the magic wand to keep
software patentable - they'll keep making exceptions that logically allow all
software which conflicts with the clear statements of Law.
* For anyone
that would like to dispute all software falls into those two areas, your
challenge: Identify a single piece of working "code" that does something but is
not a math algorithm.
And just so you understand, we who understand basic
math understand "Sally has 5 apples, John steals 3, how many apples does Sally
have left" is still just math. So at least give it a good try to come up with
something that is not actually math.
Remember: applied math is still just
math. You could be building a deck and apply the 3-4-5 measurement to make sure
your patio is square. The application of that measurement is not, and should
never be, patentable subject matter.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
