|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Patents may be granted in order to advance science and the useful arts (sorry,
it's not my constitution, I don't know the exact words).
Anyways, SCOTUS seems to think that patents on maths and facts of nature
(basically, "discoveries of nature") do NOT advance the arts, and
therefore fall outside the LIMITED purview of Congress to allow patents.
Just wish they'd apply the same logic to ever-lengthening copyright!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
As we all know, the Law is more then just a single statement of a particular
section in a particular Chapter. It's influenced by a number of things
including the Constitution and Case Law.
We all also know that the
Supremes can override an unconstitutional Law that Congress decides to make so
the Law is unenforceable. In the alternative, they can take an otherwise
unconstitutional Law and narrow it so it doesn't breach the
constitution.
So... within that context, I present the very clear
statement the Supremes made in Mayo:
simply implementing a
mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a
patentable application of that principle
Your turn:
Point to
where the patent is not simply applying a math algorithm on a physical machine -
namely a computer.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Good As Done! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2013 @ 10:51 AM EDT
|
|
|
|