Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>]

Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> The real simple guideline is:
>
> (1) No program claims

Like this one:

"Claims:
[...]
48. A computer program product for controlling a computer in a 
request-response client-server computer network in which a plurality of 
clients communicate with a server by issuing requests to read or write 
data, comprising a recording medium readable by the computer; and means 
recorded on the recording medium for directing the computer to:
-receive a plurality of requests from the clients at a receiver;
-analyse each of the plurality of requests passed from the request 
receiver in a request analyser;
-qualify each request in a request qualifier as either an actionable 
request for which action should be taken and a response issued, or a
deferrable request for which action should be delayed and a response 
deferred until an actionable state is reached;
-indicate from a state indicator, for each deferrable request, when the 
actionable state is reached such that each such deferrable request
is requalified as an actionable request; and
-indicate from a response indicator for each actionable request to the 
server that each such actionable request should be actioned and a
response provided.

http://gauss.bacon.su.se/EP/1/1/EP1159696.html

or this one:

"What is claimed is
[...]
15. A computer program product for controlling a computer, comprising:
a. a memory medium; and
b. a computer program, stored on said memory medium, said computer 
program comprising instructions for implementing at least one virtual 
device driver for controlling network communications from a DOS 
application using a controllerless modem servicing both DOS and non-DOS 
applications, wherein the at least one virtual device driver is 
guaranteed computer access to said controllerless modem, regardless of 
the state of the DOS application."

http://gauss.bacon.su.se/EP/9/9/EP993636.html

etc.

> (2) no claims to anything that can be described by a program claim

I have seen a couple of patents where almost all the claims for the 
"method" was reiterated with method replaced with "computer program":

Claim 1-4.  A method for xyz
Claim 5-8.  A computer program for (the same) xyz

Simple cut'n paste.

The patent system should work like MacDonalds:

   simple recepie -> predictable result

Someone said the difference between a patentlogist and a proctologist is 
not that big, but that is not how I ment the MacDonalds simile to be 
interpreted.

//Erik