This is just crazy...
Posted Jan 20, 2012 6:04 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: Software is The Glass Bead Game
Parent article: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
For the purposes of testing your invention, you use an existing, not very interesting, process to convert your software to something physical.
If this is indeed existing, not very interesting, process then the patent is not needed.
Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software.
The part where you express a drug as a pill and put it in someone's mouth is a fairly small part of the invention process; if we could download a drug into a test subject through the retina, the drug wouldn't be much less costly to invent.
The part where you express drug as a pill has nothing whatsoever to do with sane drug patents. The part which explains how drug affect the patient is what is patented (I assume there are patents which explain how you can create round, square and triangle pill - these are netirely worthless). You can not express this as math because you can not express patient as math. You can design some models, etc, but ultimately you must test your model on real patients - and this is where bulk of costs comes from.
to post comments)