|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
We should remember that, even if the law says processes are patentable subject
matter, that still means that the processes must pass all sections of the law
and the judicial exclusions.
When the law defines processes and methods, it does not make clear who or what
should be executing the process or method. I think that Congress intended the
processes and methods to be executed by human beings. The law explicitly permits
the use of known machines as part of the execution of the process or method,
which is how Diehr surmounted the hurdle. The execution of software instructions
by a processor or knitting patterns by a human being is not a person using a
known machine as part of an invented method or process.
Flook excludes from patent any processes or methods with insignificant
post-process activity. At the completion of execution of software instructions,
there is no post-process activity. Software methods and processes, of
themselves, are excluded by Flook.
Even though the law explicitly allows for business process patents, business
processes are abstract ideas and judicially excluded (unless someone finds one
that passes all the patent laws). Bilski changed the legal challenge from a
hurdle to a high-jump.
So, I agree. Unless the method or process produces a line of tangible, rubber
ducks, it is non-patentable subject matter. Neither business processes nor
executing software qualifies. I think that is what Congress intended.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Me too - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT
|
|
|
|