To add to your thoughts outlining a single point of how software fails the
concepts of patentability:
Some have attempted to use the argument "but
if we build the functionality into the hardware you wouldn't have a problem with
that - it's exactly the same as applying software".
What they are
choosing not to acknowledge is that they are deliberately conflating the
object with the act of using the object.
Consider the abacus
as a great example. It's a physical tool that helps humans perform
This directly matches the computer. The computer is a tool that
helps humans perform math.
To patent the application of software to a
computer (applied instructions to the device) is exactly equivalent of patenting
the application of fingers to the abacus.
I don't believe for an instant
that the purpose of patents was to be applicable to simply using the
Congress should clearly outline that the use of an invention
is not patent eligible subject matter.
Keep in mind: I'm talking about
the strict use - only - of an invention. Not the combining of one invention
with another to produce a new invention - of which the application of fingers to
an abacus does not form!
You want to combine a computer with gyros and
wheels and such to create a robot? Ok, that's a patentable item. But the
software to control what the robot does should never be patentable.
you can patent different electronic signals as applied to a single physical
device - then I've got a lot of numbers as applied to telephones I'd like to
patent - oh, and I can simply author a very small algorithm - to be used by a
human with pencil and paper - that can be used to walk through and create every
possible number that can be entered. Of course, using a computer or abacus
could certainly speed up the process of generating said numbers, with the exact
same algorithm - the computer more so then the abacus simply because the
computer works faster.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]