Authored by: Jeays on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
Surely a method is just information, and can be sent to someone else without
depriving the sender of it. So why are methods patentable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
As a photographer, I'd say there's no problem patenting a new lens. Thing is,
new lenses ARE possible.
Long ago, I had a "long focus" lens. That is, a 500mm lens that was
half a metre long. Pretty poor quality, but more than good enough. Then I
replaced it with a 500mm cat. About 150mm long. How did they do that!? Certainly
patentable!
Most modern lenses bear no resemblance between their physical and logical
length. Most modern zooms aren't "trombone action" anymore, so their
focal length changes while their physical length doesn't. Patentable.
And now we've gone to digital, the glass itself has had to change - when I put
my old film-grade lenses on my new digital camera, the quality often isn't that
good. The improvements are patentable.
Thing is, in every circumstance, I've described a *physical* *improvement* to
the lens. That's not true of "adding a computer program to a
computer".
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
No, the machine that implements the method is patentable. (at
least, that's the way it should be). The method is
information, potentially copyrightable. Why should something
get both copyright and patent protection?
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|