|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
At least one point I should have mentioned is that I was considering that all
software novelty merely create new processes. There is no overcoming of mother
nature except in the exact way predefined by an existing machine.
[I did consider things like a droid device on the one hand vs Diehr.][ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:55 AM EDT |
Also:
6,7, and 8 are the main arguments for the 5 statement.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
The Supremes came up with a similar argument in Benson. My summary is that the
software algorithm did not comprise anything protectable under the patent laws
as it was not a new machine and, as math, it had to be treated under the law as
prior art. (Bear in mind my obvious bias in reporting the facts, so check it for
yourself).
Patenting that software algorithm was, in effect, preventing software writers
from ever using the algorithm in their programs, even though it did not qualify
as a protectable invention.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|