|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:17 AM EDT |
I suppose if this is going to be the law of the USPTO it really
doesn’t matter because it looks like software is dead. At the moment I can’t
conceive of anything that could be patented if this test is to hold up.
No, Gene, software will not be dead, just software
patents.
The trouble we have here is that as a result of this
articulation and the articulation of 5 of the 10 CAFC Judges on CLS Bank, no
software is patent eligible.
Gee, Gene, now you are getting
it!
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:37 AM EDT |
The PTAB conclusion that Versata’s claims preempt an abstract idea
is flat wrong and, frankly, insulting. The PTAB could say their hands are tied
by Supreme Court precedent, but they shouldn’t pretend that these claims that
specifically recite tangible structure preempt an idea. And if they are going to
say that shouldn’t they be required to define what is an abstract
idea?
No Gene, really, I think it is quite clear that
they
know what an abstract idea is. Perhaps, with more study,
you will find
your own definition someday.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
The heart of the fallacy is in here.
It is undeniable that the
presence of a piece of software turns a dumb terminal that is incapable of
accomplishing anything into a machine that is specifically useable for the
intended purpose. In order to grasp this unassailable reality the PTAB should
instruct the tech people at the USPTO to remove all software (including
operating systems) from their laptops and desktops. They should then attempt to
accomplish any task. They will then conclusively prove to themselves that
without software the computer ceases to be able to provide any functionality;
even functionality of a general purpose computer, whatever that may be. Then
they can instruct the tech people to load software onto the oversize paperweight
occupying space on their desk, which had formerly been a computer with myriad
capabilities all thanks to the presence of software. When software is reloaded
the PTAB will notice that the machine can be once again used to accomplish
whatever specific task the loaded software enables. Presto-chango! The
paperweight is now a useful machine!
Software is input given to a
universal algorithm. Of course the universal algorithm is useless without its
input. That is how it works. Input doesn't make a new machine. It is just an
ingredient for the machine to operate on.
Quinn's argument is applicable to
every device that requires an input to function. A car is useless without gas. A
player piano is useless without a piano roll. A DVD player is useless without a
DVD. A printing press is useless without a document to print. I can continue
like that. No new machine is made in any of these examples.
Even if we
accept the theory that programming a computer makes a new machine Quinn's
argument leads to contradictions. A web server is useless without a web page to
show. A print program is useless without a document to print. A database
management system is useless without data. A text processor is useless without
text. A calculator is useless without numbers. But none of these inputs are
software. Does supplying them make a new machine? Remove the data from the
computer and the software can't do anything. Give the computers the data and
presto-chango! The paperweight is now a useful machine!
The Federal Circuit
in CLS Bank made clear they think programming a computer rewires the computer.
So it is not just the new functions. It is the rewiring that matters. Show the
judges the computer is not rewired and the new machine doctrine is dead. Giving
an input is a physical operation that doesn't change the circuit structure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
So, no bios, no peripheral drivers, no working keyboard or display... in fact,
just a computing device with the ability to execute a string of instructions
from its repertoire of valid instructions.
It is not a dumb terminal. You need software for that.
BTW, it is not a mobile phone, washing machine or smart television, either.
It is absolutely fabulous how adding software to an old computer can turn it
into a truly new washing machine.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|