|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
Something that is confusing me about this.
After it was sent down, the FDAC reheard the case, didn't the FDAC then agree to
hear the case en banc?
I seem to remember that happening but never hearing the en banc ruling. ISn't
SCOTUS hearing this premature?
MouseTHeLucyDog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
The problems with any patents on "data" which are normally
in the realm of
not patentable subject matter 'as such'
are
the entanglement with their
physical embodiment. The
data
contain "instructions" which, at times
'seem' or are
judged
to produce a "technical effect" in nature.
Thus in
the UK we have had software patent creep since
Aerotel/Macrossan (2006)
modified by Symbian (2008) with
the
four step test:
1 Properly
construe the claim;
2 identify the actual contribution;
3 ask whether it
falls solely within the excluded
subject matter; and
4 check whether
the actual or alleged contribution is
actually technical in
nature.
By adding the words 'as such' to software, 'number 4' -
contributing a technical effect becomes the confusing
and contentious
issue as to "patentability".
The IPKat: Patentable
subject matter - Where are we now?
PS I
still don't understand how and why software patents
are both copyrightable
AND patentable. Does any other
subject matter
attract both these
protections? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|