[Patents] exclusion of interfaces?

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

Ramon replied to me:

> > > They were not explicitly discussed.  I take it
> > > that interfaces are as 'software' and 'representation
> > > of information' as it can get. Not?
> >
> > Moreover, nobody knows what system may become part of an interface in the
> > future.  This is a problem of determining what may be done with a patent,
> > not what can be patented.
>
> I am not sure if I understand you. I supose that you mean that an
> interface can be protected "de facto" by protecting an algorithm, such
> as the case of the GIF format with the LZW algorithm. Or the MP3
> format. However, I think that forbidding the patenting of interfaces
> would be a progress. Patents such as Microsoft ASF, RealAudio and many
> other would be banned.

There is no patent on ASF or MP3.  There are just patents on some
principles that happen to be necessary for ASF and MP3.  When looking at
the patent application there is no way to determine whether this belongs
to a standard or not.  But the examinator can find out whether the claimed
invention is a system of formal logics ("plans and instructions for mental
activity ... and programs for computers"). Even if the claims talk about
all kinds of processors and devices, he can force the applicant to remove
all non-inventive garbage from those claims and reduce them to their
(probably non-technical, purely logical) core.  But he can't force him to
predict in what kind of application the "invention" will be used and
whether this application will become a de-facto standard.

So rather than demand all kinds of new exclusions, we should insist that
the current law text is clear and only needs to be clarified to the extent
that the patent lawyers who are currently interpreting it are not willling
to understand it without excruciatingly detailed clarification.

-phm