|
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 10:15 PM EST |
"then the computer is a *minor* *part* of the invention."
Sure, the computer is. But the executing software may not be, if some new
algorithm allows things to go substantially faster.
"As per Diehr, what gets patented is the whole, which (for the most part)
has *nothing* to do with the maths and lots to do with other stuff. In Diehr,
it's rubber, an example was given of the space shuttle."
But, for example, a new compression process that allows more video on a DVD (if
allowed) would be practically all math.
"The trouble with Bilski is - as the Supreme Court put it with Diehr - is
that there is minimal post-algorithm activity, and what there is is basic
commerce."
Right. And it will be interesting to see what happens if a compression or
sorting patent hits a higher court. Lower courts have ruled compression patents
valid in some cases, e.g. Stac v Microsoft. With compression and sorting, there
is minimal post-algorithm activity, and what there is is usually more
computation...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|