Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Jean-Luc Halleux <jean-luc@halleux.org>]

At 15:04 9/07/2004 +0200, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> I find the term "software-implemented xxx" even more questionable than
> "computer-implementec xxx" though.  Software is on the idea side just as
> much as on the implementation side.  If you want to express an idea
> concisely, you'll use a higher programming language.
>
> The word "implementation" is already wrong.  It tries to create a
> dichotomy which is not used elsewhere in the patent system.  You don't say
> "chemical-implemented inventions" etc.  The object of the claim is a
> chemical product or process, and in the case of software patents it's a
> computer program, claimed in broad terms so that many instances/variants
> ("implementations") are covered.
>
> --
> Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927

And what about a "mathematics-implemented invention" ?

Assume a new math theorem that would be useful in several applications. Say 
that these applications are machines or processes ant that they work better 
because of the use of this new math theorem in the design of the machine or 
process. Would a patent on these new machines or processes be possible ? 
Would this theorem be patentable ?

I am just trying to better understand where the limit is.

Jean-Luc