|
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
So then such a player can never play another DVD? Because if this made it
into a new machine then it wouldn't be able to function as the old machine
anymore. But it is capable of playing other DVDs, and I'd argue that it's not a
new machine merely because it can play one particular disc. If one of the
functions of the machine is to assemble and store the key the first time the DVD
is played so it doesn't have to repeat the process later, then merely performing
that function doesn't change the machine into a new machine. No more than
starting a car up makes it into a new car just because the motor's running now
and it wasn't 2 seconds ago. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Information is not patent eligible. It's abstract and accomplished by
storage of signals which have semiotic meaning.
The idea that adding
something patent ineligible and making a new machine is reminiscent of
copyright's 17 USC §
101 definition of copies:
Copies” are material objects, other
than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later
developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term
“copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the
work is first fixed.
You're gracing that abstract information
with the attributes of the thing in which you are fixating the information,
conflating the medium and the abstract information.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|