Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 15:31, Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> > And what about a "mathematics-implemented invention" ?
> > Would this theorem be patentable ?
> 
> Of course not the theorem as such but the machine or process that uses it.

Let's remember that "as such" in patent newspeak, means that effectively
all practical uses of the algorithm known or unknown will be covered by
the patent so that while the language used say the contrary you have in
effect patented an algorithm _as_such_.

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

The limit is on the resistence a few people can oppose, if there were no
opposition pretty much everything would already be patentable, as that's
the point. Raising barriers to protect business against fair
competition, innovation, free knowledge. That's all this kind of patents
are about.

> Then you need to read some court decisions, perhaps starting with Diamond 
> v. Diehr, which is very well written and interesting, especially due to 
> the dissenting minority opininon which is also codified in it.

Hartmut, is that available on-line?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Garofalo, 39 - 20133 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2953 4143 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399