|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 06:58 PM EST |
(Touché. Always easier to criticise than create. What gave me the impression of
repetition is that things are stated once in prose, once in the table of
contents and then again in the section titles. I also think that the agreements
and disagreements with Lemley should be developed in the main text - the
disagreement doesn't seem to be? I'm a big fan of abstract-intro-etc, but maybe
this is short enough not to need an intro. Here's my stab at an abstract, which
could maybe replace everything up to section A. If an intro is included, I guess
it should be a bit more backgroundy. A problem to which I don't have a solution:
the definition of abstract subject matter is conspicuous by its absence,
although the example demonstrates that there is a problem.)
A clear distinction between software functions and the underlying algorithms can
be defined. Only algorithms should be patentable. Requiring their disclosure
would prevent claims on functions with unspecified algorithms resulting in the
grant of rights to inventions the patentee has not invented. Successful claims
for algorithms should be explicit, with the preferred form of disclosure being
source code for working programs. In parallel, we argue that even explicit
algorithms should undergo section 101 subject matter analysis.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|