|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Have you read the article? Given your argument I suspect you may not have paid
enough attention. In particular I suggest you read more attentively the part of
the article which follows this headline:
The Legal Theory that New Computer Functionality Creates a New Machine is
Technically Incorrect
You will find this headline in bold. This portion of the article discusses the
point you raise.
That you could have made a special purpose with the same functionality using
switches and relays is beside the point. The question is whether programming a
computer makes a new machine, not whether we could have made one by other
means.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
"The same machine might have been created without a
computer - using switches and relays from the 1960's"
In which case, it's not new, its merely in a different form.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
In a famous patent case, the item in question was a shrimp deveining machine. I
think the general rule is 'if you make it, it is a machine'. Otherwise it is a
method, a process or a transformation of existing materials into a new material.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|