A diagram (blueprint) is required to identify the invention. In the case of
a machine, it's called a blueprint.
I'm absolutely positive that if
someone built a product that looks "mostly" the same minus the patented part of
the particular invention, replacing their own unit to perform the same task -
the patent holder would not have a legitimate claim of infringement.
I
say legitimate - because what I believe is legitimate and what certain Patent
Lawyers believe is legitimate don't coincide. As a result, in my humble opinion
the situation you are describing is indeed occurring and it's a perversion of
Patent Law.
For example:
The patents that keep getting presented as
evidence that math is patentable even while the Supremes clearly keep stating it
is not.
Ironically enough - all of those examples I've reviewed are patents
granted on something bigger then math and the individual providing the example
is conflating the actual invention with math to deliberately obfuscate/confuse
just so they can argue math is patentable.
Much like the deliberate
conflation of the physical mousetrap patents in the comments of this article in
order to try and confuse why granting a patent to the concept of the broad
process of "catching a mouse" is so very wrong.
Of course - I could be
quite mistaken. My opinion is based on my own ideologies with confirmation via
rulings from the Supremes. So I could be wrong on the patentability of math -
but then, the Supremes would be too.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
