I know enough about software to know software should never be patented no
matter what word/description you try and place on it.
I know enough about
Diehr to know the Supremes would have revoked the patent had it been on software
alone rather than including the whole combined (process/mechanism/machines)
where it included the heat press. The key - to me - being:
at least one
physical machine was involved that was not just a computer
I do not know
the process itself sufficiently to know what kind of process it is other then it
produces a physical end-result.
So... given it contained physical
components outside the computer that produced a physical result (curred rubber)
I believe there is sufficient consideration that it should pass basic 101
examination.
But I don't know! Because I don't the particular industry.
I don't know if the "total machine" they used (which happened to include a
computer) existed before.
Let's see if I can better explain.... perhaps
an analogy might help crystalize the thoughts.
Let's use a toy train
setup with a switching station, two trains and a computer to control both the
switching station and the trains.
Basic principle:
the trains get to
travel in their assigned circuits and the computer controls the trains when they
come to the intersection so they don't crash
This setup can be done in two
ways:
1: the computer control is built right in to a unit that is actually a
part of the train set - this is most commonly expected direct from the
manufacturer
2: the computer control is a standard desktop computer
that someone jury-rigged to send basic "on/off" signals to usb lines which have
been plugged into an electrical switch to control the power to the trains on
each separate track - this is most commonly expected when one thinks of doing
something the manufacturer didn't build into the product
One could view the
combined computer+usb+switch+trainset as a "physical process" or as a "machine
that is not encased in a single structure".
Logically, I don't think it
makes a difference to view it as a process as opposed to a machine. A patent
granted on either (process vs machine) would apply equally I
think.
Therein lies my conundrum:
If "process" equates to "machine"
anyway then what's the purpose for adding "process" to the equation?
Some
have used the example of "processed cheese". But... not knowing what that
"process" is... how is that not simply a recipe to make a certain type of
cheese? And I believe recipes shouldn't be patentable.
I do strongly
believe that abstract = non-physical. And that the non-physical should not be
able to be patented.
Math, language, the Laws of physics as humans have
described them - these are all non-physical. To patent that is to move away
from the "public education for everyone" system we have into a "only the
privileged (privileged via having enough money) can even learn about it". I'm a
firm believer that proper education for everyone leads to a far better society -
better for everyone. The wealthy will say:
but I have less
Not that
honestly of course. And my response to that is:
But its not so much less
that you're suffering in any way. And if 4/5th of Society was uneducated so
they ended up suffering by not having sufficient food, that would certainly lead
to much larger crime rates drastically increasing your risk to suffering from
crime.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|