Of course, that's not what Patent Law is today - but is that where Patent Law
should be?
Sounds like of the four attributes that allow
patentability:
process
machine
manufacture
compos
ition of matter
You view only "process" should be a requirement for
patentability.
Ergo - the process of making the mousetrap would be
patented - but not the mousetrap itself.
Once a patent is applied to
"attach a to b with screw" - even if one created the computer - they couldn't
patent that part of the creation of the computer.
And - of course - one
couldn't get a patent on the computer itself.
But then - all that had
come before (such as the replacement of the diode with the transistor) would
have been covered by the associating patent at the new step.
Simply
putting all the existing components together into the form of the computer would
be well known processes.... all you need do is consider the components of the
first vacuum tube computer relative to the tv's being made at the time. The
only real difference is volume of particular components and patterns of
assembly.
Interesting position of where Patent Law should
be.
That's along the lines of whether I agree or not with the complete
absolution of the patent system. It'll require a lot more thought and
consideration on my part to understand the ramifications better before I take a
position on them.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
