Hardware vs software
Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:46 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata
In reply to: This is just crazy...
Parent article: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
I'm not sure what your point is, since you start with "This is just crazy," then agree with most of what the parent post said.
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.
Right, the inventor does not apply for a patent on that process. Mainly because the machines that fabricate the drug are already patented (they were interesting when they were new). The patent claims cover the informational inputs to that process.
Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software.
That's what the sentences after "They're software" were intended to explain.
The part which explains how drug affect the patient is what is patented
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.
And all of that applies equally (except in degree) to one-click web ordering and to ibuprofen. Which is why I say there isn't a distinction, for the purposes of this discussion, between hardware and software.
to post comments)