Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
"software is math!" and how we win"software is math!" and how we winPosted Nov 7, 2012 12:10 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by Seegras Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
That leaves three options:
1. Replace the judges and examiners with computer scientists
#1: Isn't realistic. (That is to say, pursuing this goal isn't an efficient use of our limited resources.)
#2: This is where "software is math" fits in, but we've been making this argument for years when submitting amicus briefs and responding to patent office consultations. Still might work, and we'll keep trying, but the Supreme Court is our best hope and they've been pretty reluctant to take a stand. And if we win in the Supreme Court but haven't built any support in Congress, the megacorps will rush through some legislation.
#3: This is where RMS's suggestion fits in. We've done a lot of work on this in other countries but very little in the US. People say it's impossible in the US, but the hard truth is that it's the only way to really win.
(Log in to post comments)
"software is math!" and how we win Posted Nov 7, 2012 20:02 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
#1 has many problems.
the limited number of computer scientists is the first one (would you rather have them doing useful stuff or reading patent apps)
But the biggest problem is that setting any industry to police itself is a major problem.
"software is math!" and how we win Posted Nov 11, 2012 22:27 UTC (Sun) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> 1. Replace the judges and examiners with computer scientists
Are you aware that examiners need a technical degree and a background in their arts? Or that some judges are former patent attorneys with technical insight?
> 2. Convince the judges and examiners to switch to the computer scientists' definition
Exactly what is this definition?
> 3. Change the law so that the (broken) opinion of the judges and examiners doesn't matter
So who gets to overrule the judges?
|
|||||||||||||