[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>
- To: Patent forum <patents@aful.org>
- Subject: Re: [Patents] Software is not hardware, social sciences are not natural sciences.
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:14:18 +0100
On 15 mrt 2004, at 18:37, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
I hope Bernard realizes that his example is what underlies the logic of
US caselaw (such as Benson and Alappat) that provides for software
patenting - you have to be patenting a specific application, such as
this new drill application.
If the drill application is an invention in itself, you don't need
software patents in order to be able to patent it. I guess you could
always add a dependent claim stating that you do this drilling under
control of a computer interpreting a particular computer program, but
you can add that to pretty much every process patent and it doesn't
really serve any purpose (it doesn't limit the monopoly granted by the
patent in any sensible way).
The only reason to introduce software patents, is to introduce the
patentability of mathematics, rules of organisation and all those other
abstract things which are deemed not to be patentable. Of course you
are going to apply them to something when you use them, you'd be pretty
stupid if all you did with your incredible new sorting algorithm was to
have it run on a bunch of meaningless numbers all day. There's nothing
inventive about applying it to some real-world problem.
So the meat of your software patent, i.e. the new innovative stuff that
makes this described application patentable, is the abstract algorithm
behind it. Why on Earth keep up the facade of "pure mathematics are not
patentable"? Unless you mean "pure mathematics are not claimable". And
even that can be discussed, since if you discover a new signal
processing algorithm and you claim it for processing sound and image
data, you have covered pretty much every useful application (so the
net-effect for society is that same as when you would have claimed the
mathematical method itself).
Who cares that you are still allowed to use it to draw pretty pictures
when feeding it random data?
Jonas
- Re: [Patents] Software is not hardware, social sciences are not natural sciences., (continued)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)