|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:07 PM EST |
The analogies we are using are specialized hardware, not general purpose
hardware.
If I take the software used to control that gearbox, what else could I do with
it? Not much, other than control another gearbox, so there is really no way to
use that software without infringing upon a patent (because you would have to
drive a gearbox, which is covered in the patent).
However, what happens when we are talking about a general purpose machine? What
if, as myNym stated in the other thread, we took gearbox control software and
ran it in a simulator on a general purpose computer? Would this infringe the
patent?
See, it's hard to visualize, because the example is so specialized, so a
simulator is the best I can come up with.
Let me try another one:
Say I have a video capture solution, with a breakout box that connects via usb
and uses a new method of compressing video to speed up transfer. I take out a
patent on the software used in the bundled software on the computer, the
software run by the microcontroller in the breakout box, and the breakout box
itself.
If someone else takes similar microcontroller software and uses it in a computer
program to compress large amounts of binary data(say from a database), are they
infringing. Technically, the software is performing the same kind of
compression, but they did not use the breakout box, nor did they use the bundled
software.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Something just occured to me - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:00 PM EST
- ?? - Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:16 PM EST
- ?? - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:19 PM EST
- Claims - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 05:59 AM EST
- Claims - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
|
Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:30 PM EST |
"even the special purpose computer assembly would be the
patent equivalent of a standard nut or bolt"
Standard nut and bolt usage in a machine that is patentable
does not mean the nut and bolt are patented by the machine
patent.
Software usage in a machine that is patentable does not mean
that the software is patented by the machine patent.
The standard nuts and bolts are prior art, no new protection
on them, regardless of how they are used.
The software is math, and cannot be patented regardless of
how it is used.
I'm not saying that's how courts have ruled, I'm saying
that's how courts _should_ rule.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|