In comment number 5. to Jodi -
Congress has written software
patents into the patent laws in various places, so that has to mean that
software is patent eligible.
I'd like to see where that is
personally. From 35 USC 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
No software there.
You could note Congress has had two recent opportunities to try to override
judicial exceptions and failed to do so.
Using Cornell's Legal Information
Institute
search for the US Code for 'software' yields 242 results. Laboriously
scrolling through them five at a time shows none are in Title 35.
You could
also note from
MPEP 2106 that the claim example Mr. Quinn presents is likely not specific
enough to qualify as a new machine, even should the reader agree that adding
software to a computer magically changes it physically (See POlR's comment
below):
The following examples show the difference between a
tangible embodiment that is evidence of a particular practical application and
an abstract concept that has no practical application.
...
(b)
On the other hand, a claim that is directed to a machine (“What is claimed is a
machine that operates in accordance with F=ma.”) and includes no tangible
structural elements under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the
operating principle based on a mathematical relationship with no limits on the
claim scope. Thus, as no tangible embodiment is claimed, there would be no
evidence of a practical application. The claim would wholly embrace the
mathematical concept of F=ma and would not be eligible subject matter.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
