|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 03:12 PM EST |
You miss the point. Practical or not, if the task can be
performed without a
computer, it is abstract and therefore
not patentable. In fact, any task that
can be done on a
computer can be done in the head, or with pencil and paper.
Though it may take many hands, and take awhile, it clearly
abstract. There
is no physical substance! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:46 PM EST
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:06 PM EST |
You can't pump a well/do sewing/generate a usable amount of electricty with just
your brain.
You can, however, mentally execute an algorithm to compute the hp required to do
the above.
Therefore, if you can patent doing something "with a computer", then
you should also be able to patent doing something "in your head" and
"with a calculator" and "with a pencil and paper." There is
no difference except for the computing medium. Even software that controls
something can be replaced by a person pressing buttons. It may be exceptionally
ineffective, but patentability does not require effectiveness or efficiency.
Nothing physical is occurring except that which is generated as a result of the
internal, nonphysical calculation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:52 PM EST |
Making a steam engine?
In this example "with a lathe" would be surplus verbiage.
The point of a patent is it should tell you *what* to do,
not *how* to do.
With a steam engine, there are many ways you can make the
lynch-pin that goes into the driving rods. HOW you make the
pin is irrelevant. WHAT you do WITH the pin is what matters.
Likewise, in this case, HOW you do the calculations (with a
computer? in your head? on paper?) is irrelevant. What
matters is what you DO with the results.
Get rid of all this "how" verbiage, that is extraneous to
the actual result, and a lot of patents would vanish.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- what's the point of a steam engine patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:01 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 06:08 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 08:13 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jesse on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 10:59 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM EST
- Nope. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 06:07 AM EST
- I disagree completely - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Sorry about that. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:52 PM EST
- Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:25 AM EST
- Then you understand that mathematics is an abstract concept - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:52 AM EST
- So is physics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST
- If you understand computation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- Sure, you can simulate what a computer does with your mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 02:52 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Hardware is NOT software - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EST
- Who is arguing that software by itself should be patentable? - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:29 PM EST
- You're missing the simulation point - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:34 AM EST
- not exactly. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 AM EST
- That is due to the recurseive observation.. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:17 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- you reminded me of a standard challenge. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:33 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:59 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: bprice on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:52 AM EST
- No, I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:51 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No I'm not - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:02 PM EST
- insurmountable task to build an analog computer - Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:51 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 04:59 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:07 AM EST
- The problem.. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 10:31 AM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM EST |
An unaided human can't output nearly the torque of a steam
engine.
I think the idea is that if a person can do with pencil and
paper, the computer is just speeding up the process, and using
a computer to speed up computation is as obvious as water
being wet.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:38 AM EST |
the invention may still be non-patentable subject matter.
The Bilski
invention included extensive data collection on energy derivative offers and
potential purchaser usage patterns together with complex statistical analysis to
match offer with user.
The use of a computer is essential or else the
offers would go past their sell-by date and the profit-making deals would not be
made.
The Bilski patent never mentions a computer, but a computer is
essential to use the patented method. Despite the fact that a computer is
absolutely essential to make the method useful, the Supreme Court found the
invention to be an abstract idea and an invalid patent.
Any machine,
method or process invention that includes a computer, smart phone or touch
tablet claim should first be reviewed without those claims. If the remaining
claims are unchanged in meaning and the claimed functions are not rendered
meaningless, then the invention is almost certainly abstract ideas.
If
the claimed functions are rendered meaningless, then the computer is essential
to the meaning of the claims. Applying more precision, the invention is an
algorithm executable by a processor manipulating binary symbols. Inventions
which are math algorithms are non-statutory matter and should not be awarded a
patent, according to the law.
Finally, any claim which includes the
phrase 'implemented on a computer', is an invalid claim. In the words of the
Supreme Court in Flook,
It would make the determination of
patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman's art and would ill
serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for "ideas" or
phenomena of nature. The rule that the discovery of a law of nature cannot be
patented rests, not on the notion that natural phenomena are not processes, but
rather on the more fundamental understanding that they are not the kind of
"discoveries" that the statute was enacted to protect. The obligation to
determine what type of discovery is sought to be patented must precede the
determination of whether that discovery is, in fact, new or
obvious.
In Bilski, the Supreme Court opined:
Flook
stands for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas
“cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a
particular technological environment”
If it is a business method,
the courts may still find that, in some way, it is not abstract. In that case,
at least in the US, the patent holder has the monopoly on that method. However,
a computer programmed to execute the method does not directly infringe on the
patent. Only people carrying out all the steps of the process or all the aspects
of the method are infringing the patent.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:51 PM EST |
I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that if the Supreme's reviewed
that question the answer would be a unanimous, definitive NO!
And why is
that question appropriate? Why is the answer definitive?
Because
patenting nothing more then the application of software to a computer is exactly
the same as patenting a math algorithm as applied to a calculator. No more, no
less.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|