| |||||||||||||
Draw the line at mathematics, not softwareDraw the line at mathematics, not softwarePosted Mar 22, 2009 8:51 UTC (Sun) by AndyBurns (subscriber, #27521)In reply to: Draw the line at mathematics, not software by vleo Parent article: An afternoon among the patent lawyers
"Why these implementations should have different patent/copyright regime?"
I beleive he is saying they should all be treated the same, i.e. as not patentable, because whatever the implementation they just transform logical inputs into logical outputs, rather than manufacture or transform a physical product.
(Log in to post comments)
Drawing the line at what is infringement Posted Mar 22, 2009 15:04 UTC (Sun) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
The other approach is not to try to define what is a software patent, but to declare that certain acts are not infringement. IIRC, surgical techniques are patentable, but Congress says that an individual surgeon working on a patient is not infringing. It might be useful to have something similar apply to certain acts of software conveyance.
The founder of one open-source group at a large IT company told me that their corporate counsel decided that his group is not, for purposes of patent law, "making" a program that implements a patented algorithm -- they're just describing it in source code format, and the user "makes" it when he or she types "make."
(Why does a bunch of patent lawyers arguing against a software patent ban sound like a bunch of rats arguing against the use of galvanized metal in grain storage?)
Drawing the line at what is infringement Posted Mar 23, 2009 7:36 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
A sane and sound solution, without seeming too radical for the court system to implement with a few well-aimed decisions. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||