|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
> I asked the same question a couple of times. Overall, the
> software is maths argument is mostly legalistic - and
> based on the argument that you aren't allowed to patent
> concepts.
This is only half of the argument. The other half is that current case law is
based on some fictional principles of computer science and nothing good can come
out of that.
I don't think it is a waste of time to ask the court to use actual computer
science. Their understanding of what the invention is will drastically change.
Software patents will never be the same after that happens.
> Given that judges have decided that, yes, you are allowed
> to patent some concepts, my overall judgement is that the
> time spent telling outsiders to fall in line and agree
> that software is math and therefore unpatentable is
> probably wasted.
Then the courts will never decide whether software is an unpatentable abstract
idea when actual computer science is used in the legal analysis. The current
case law based on fictional computer science will remain.
Some concepts are patentable, but not all concepts. The software is math
argument says that software is that kind of unpatentable concepts called
abstract ideas. There has been in the past some software patents which were
invalidated for this very reason. This approach offers some real hope of success
because it is about applying existing case law from the Supreme Court on a
factually correct understanding of computer science.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
This has been my read of things as well.
Copyright and patents are both intended to help advance the
arts and sciences by rewarding those who initially created
them.
Copyright's limited term was enacted so that one generation
could not lord their works over future generations...we are
at 100+ years. While that by be representative of a
Corporation's generation, it seems a bit excessive for
citizenry.
The patent system, on the other hand, is just broke. Many
of the problems you see taking place with software patents
are found in the non-software patent word just as much.
Only difference tends to be the speed at which software can
enter the market, hit critical mass, and become completely
obsoleted. Ludicrous Speed.
Fixing the patent system (regardless of what happens with
software patents) should be of national priority. While
doing so, software patents should be specifically be
addressed...
a. Remove software patents
b. Create specific legislation for software patents
c. Replace patents in software with some other
technique or device specifically designed to protect
software in the same way as patents (intended)
Software is math just seems to be a mantra (being
generous... propaganda is probably more accurate) intended
to get a.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|