|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
You state:
does NOT mean software as a class in not
patentable
In Mayo, the
Supremes stated quite clearly:
simply implementing a mathematical
principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable
application of that principle
I can't find an appropriate quote
from my preferred Supreme Court Opinions (Mayo, Bilski, Prometheus) so I'll have
to search further. I seem to recall the actual Supreme Court quote being along
the lines:
... does not mean processes like software will always be patent
ineligible...
Now it can be reasonably viewed that your position aligns
with that. But it can also be reasonably viewed that a non-software process
(like software) is open to potential patent eligibility while software itself is
not.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- This is an - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- This is an - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- This is an - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- This is an - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT
|
|
|
|