|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
I really gotta get a local copy of that ruling at home.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
Gottschalk v. Benson link.
That was a case from 1972. A time much
earlier in the life of software where even fewer people knew what software was
about.
In Bensen - along with what you quoted - they also
stated:
The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial
practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means
that, if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly preempt the
mathematical formula and, in practical effect, would be a patent of the
algorithm itself.
That matches the recent expression of "math
applied to device is not patent eligible". So there's consistency there over
the years.
What you highlight appears to be where the lack of
understanding about hardware relative to software creeps in to the
picture.
They do not yet agree with those of us who say:
You
say math+computer = non-patentable, since software = math, software+computer =
non-patentable
In the alternative:
The Supremes may agree
abstract+computer = non-patentable, since software = abstract, software+computer
= non-patentable
While the Supremes may currently hold the view that
there is the chance "there is a possibility software can exist that is not math"
or "there is a possibility software can exist that is not abstract" - it's up to
those filing for software patents to prove that in order to get/keep their
patent.
The more software patents are shown to be math while the Supremes
never come across a non-math software patent - the greater the likelihood that
the Supremes will eventually agree that:
since math+computer =
non-patentable
then
software+computer = non-patentable
What a
conundrum for those filing for software patents.
If one is explicit - then
one clearly shows software is math
in the alternative
If one avoids
showing software is math - then one ends up authoring a patent with such broad
language it's rejected anyway
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|