|Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT|
|I don't think machine, method or process are defined by the law. That being so,|
the dictionary definition of machine would be used.
I looked it up. My dictionary gives an appallingly narrow definition:
n 1: any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to
perform or assist in the performance of human tasks.
The courts seem to assume the definition of 'any constructed device', whereas a
method or a process is an action or actions carries out by people.
Mirrored claims in software patents allow an invention that is at once a machine
(a device), a process and a method. My dictionary defines 'method' as often
comprising a series of actions. Most folk seem to accept process as a series of
actions, as well. The courts seem to treat both terms as largely synonymous
(other than defining a process as a method).
Anyway, a real machine patent is on a new machine which is not a very similar
device to an existing machine. This allows PolR's question to be put and his
arguments to be followed by the courts.
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Machine? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT