|
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
I'm an application developer and I have no problem accepting the idea that any
code, any ability to make a machine behave in a pre-determined fashion has
already been invented and is just lying there waiting to be discovered. In
fact, I think that is closer to what I actually do than to say that I "invent"
something now and then.
I don't "invent", I take basic building blocks
and arrange them in a fashion that (hopefully) achieves the intended goal in an
efficient and robust manner. These basic building blocks are the functions made
available by the operating system, the functions surfaced in the language and
the functions provided by the database handler. Any thing that can be done with
software is already lying there waiting to assembled in the right sequence, to
be discovered, you might say.
On my good days, I may arrange these blocks
in a way no one has yet discovered or tried. I may envision a complex system
that achieves my goal and then be able to assemble that system quickly with a
minimum of error but that does not mean I "invented" anything. This is not a
hard pill to swallow, it does my ego no harm because I know that possessing
detailed knowledge of the available functions of the coding environment at hand
coupled with a deep understanding of the problem to be solved is non-trivial and
not something most people can or even care to do.
Of course, this does
lead down the path of 'all the atoms were already there' which is an extreme but
so is it an extreme to say that anything and everything is new and novel and
deserving of a patent. It is obvious to me that my personal arrangement of the
basic building blocks is a matter for copyright and not patentable subject
matter. To the extent that software has the protection of copyright, to me it
does not need the additional protection of patent. No patents for software
please.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
The inventive concept lies in the physical distribution of the parts.
The skill of software is the weaving together of many abstract ideas and
concepts and this requires very complex thought processes and understanding of
the software tools employed.
The bicycle requires a much less demanding weaving together of abstract ideas
and concepts together with the laws of nature stated by Aristotle and others. It
is the visible assembly of the components whilst keeping together the ideas that
is the patentable bicycle. It is a patented machine.
The software that is produced by the inventive process cannot be seen as any of
the four classes of patentable subject matter. Only the abstract ideas and
concepts can been seen when the source code is viewed. Just because the abstract
ideas can be discerned, that does not mean that a patentable visible assembly
will ever be produced or be visible in the source or compiled code. Assembly
does not mean assembly of machine parts, in computing.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
By analogy, all devices that are built from pre-existing
components (like all
electronic devices) could be regarded as non-patentable
subject matter,
For a proper analogy, please select something that
can properly be patented that does not have physical form.
In the
alternative - please prove that software has physical form.
that all
software is inherently non-novel,
Not a logically true conclusion.
Something can be very novel and yet be an abstract concept. I present as
evidence:
E=MC2
You then state:
The key issue,
and the argument we need to focus on, is that software is abstract, and all that
is processed or "achieved" by software is likewise abstract.
Bingo!
That I agree with in it's entirety.
And abstract =
non-physical.
Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical
or concrete existence.
I'm pretty sure the Supremes once worded it
as:
can be done with the mind - with pencil and paper
Sadly - I haven't
been able to find that quote. It'd be an absolute Gem to add it to the list of
delicious Supreme Quotes.
And the definition of concrete is:
Existing
in a material or physical form; real or solid; not abstract.
And the
definition of material is:
The matter from which a thing is or can be
made;
Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the
mind or spirit.
All the definitions point to:
physical form
And
the physical you can touch! Everyone understands the physical.
And if we
consider the Legal definition of abstract... well... none of them really make
sense in the context of "what is patentable". For example:
The
term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers
to an abbreviated history of an official record.
Err... why would
it make sense to say:
You can not patent an abbreviated history of an
official record!
Did some Patent Lawyer at some point actually try to do
that? Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if someone did.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|