[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'jonas.maebe@ugent.be' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)


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





(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)