|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, June 09 2013 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
The doctrine that programming a computer makes a new machine is case law decided
by the court of appeals of the Federal Circuit. Juries have no say on it. We
need to convince the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Not if
you define:
machine := device to do one thing
Some patent attorneys who know the technical truth
define machine this way to keep the doctrine alive. This definition is not the
one used by the Federal Circuit. We don't have to convince them that this
definition is wrong because they already know that. They care about the machine
structure and a definition that ignores the structure will go nowhere.
In
CLS Bank, judge Moore explains the new machine doctrine in her dissenting
opinion very clearly:
That is what software does--it effectively
rewires a computer, making it a special purpose device capable of performing
operations it was not previously able to perform.
In CLS Bank
again, Judge Rader in his dissenting opinion further explains:
This
court long ago recognized that a computer programmed to perform a specific
function is a new machine with individualized circuitry created and used by the
operation of the software.
The doctrine is an absurdity because
software doesn't rewire the computer. The individualized circuitry created and
used by the operation of software doesn't exist. The doctrine should be
permanently refuted once the correct facts are explained to them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
