|
Authored by: PolR on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
Were mathematicians and computer scientists to come along and say
“we regard an algorithm as being something else”, such an argument would be
given short shrift by judges whose ears are closed to such arguments. See also
sections B1 and B2.
This is why we have the whole
section A.3 dedicated to explaining what mathematicians deem to be a
mathematical procedure for solving problems called an algorithm. The whole point
is to establish from mathematical literature which procedures fall within the
limits of the term 'algorithm' set forth in Benson. The following sections A4
and A5 explain how these algorithms are related to computer programming and
general purposes computers.
And it seems abundantly clear that the
judges on the CCPA and their successors on the Federal Circuit who are inspired
by them had and have nothing but contempt for the “confused” opinions of the
Supreme Court in Benson and Flook. There is no way that they would have
considered adopting the underlying principles of these cases, and accordingly
construing broadly the language of precedents for which they feel nothing but
contempt. And it is clear that Judge Rich and his associates put every effort
into cabining and effectively negating the precedents in those despised
opinions.
There is no need to construe the terms broadly. It is
sufficient to construe the term algorithm according to its true sense in
mathematics and computer science. I make no statement about the intent of the
CCPA and Federal Circuit. But I observe the resulting case law about software
patents is dysfunctional and detached from reality. It doesn't promote
innovation and harm the economy because it makes it impossible for people and
businesses to clear all rights to the goods and services they produce if they
involve software.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|