[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Steve Probert steve.probert@patent.gov.uk
- Subject: [Patents] mental acts x software
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:36:35 +0100
>This theory about mental acts was rejected in US courts.
Good. They don't have a mental act exclusion, so there is no reason for them
not to reject this theory.
>Following your reasoning the compress algorithms could (in theory) also be
>reproduced by mental acts,
I disagree. I've been thinking hard about the data on my hard drive, but I
simply cannot make it shrink by just thinking about it. Therefore, it is not
a mental act.
>...the difference beteween the two methods is that the compress algorithms
>are more complex, and can only be implemented by computers. So,
>according your argument: easy mental acts can not be patented and
>difficult mental acts can be patented, write?
Wrong. The difference has nothing to do with the degree of difficulty, but
rather to what is being done. The mathematical theory underlying a
compression algorithm is not patentable, but a data compression routine that
uses the same mathematical theory to compress data could well be patentable.
This is true whether the mathematical theory is easy or hard.
Steve Probert
!
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)