|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
I refer to all those points that the Supreme's have outlined their decisions
regarding math such as Mayo where
the Supreme's state:
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines
patentable subject matter. It says:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U. S. C. §101.
The Court has
long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception. “[L]aws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not
patentable.
And they were quite explicit to provide a
mathematical/physics example:
Likewise, Einstein could not patent
his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of
gravity.
Patenting an application of math in the context of - for
example - a sextant is fine. But patenting the math itself is
not.
The Court, as in Diehr, pointed out that the basic mathematical
equation, like a law of nature, was not patentable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|