Re: Amino -- The ideal platform independent concurrent library


Anthony Williams wrote:
[...]
However, my opinions on the matter are not really relevant here. My
point was that as I understand it, the Bilski judgement requires that
a software patent by tied to a "particular machine", and a
general-purpose computer is *not* a "particular machine".

Actually, such narrow interpretation (resulting in a broad exclusion
over software) is explicitly NOT supported by the Bilski judgement
itself:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf

"although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad
exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter
beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth
by the Supreme Court."

Here's more regarding software and business method patents, post-Bilski:

------
How does the Bilski decision affect ?business method? and software
patents?

The Bilski court reconsidered earlier decisions that had liberalized
patent standards. These decisions brought a surge in e-commerce and
software applications just as Internet-based businesses were taking
hold. As a result, the number of patents directed at ?business methods?
? ways of finding, serving and keeping customers ? and web technologies
skyrocketed. Now, the Federal Circuit has retrenched, limiting
patentability to inventions that are tied to a particular machine or
that transform an ?article? into a different state or thing.

Can I patent software running on a general purpose computer?

The Bilski court focused on data-processing methods, and did not address
the patentability of hardware or software per se. A key question for the
future is how the phrase ?tied to a particular machine? will be applied
to software patents. If interpreted narrowly ? i.e., requiring the use
of special-purpose computing hardware to receive a patent ? many, if not
most, business method and software patents may not survive. If it is
read less restrictively, the status quo may prevail. In either case,
patents for inventions implemented as software should include some
structural and functional components in the patent application and the
claims. Claims covering human activity are now seemingly a thing of the
past.

Are there any other changes we should make to our applications?

Where possible, consider phrasing your invention in terms of a
transformation of an ?article? into a different state or thing. In
Bilski, the court focused on what constitutes ?articles? that can be
transformed, but offered little concrete guidance. Certainly any
physical object or substance is an ?article.? Something representing a
physical object or substance (e.g., a display showing an X-ray of a
bone) also qualifies. Outside these limited boundaries, however, there
are few guideposts. The court struck down Bilski?s patent because it was
related to ?business risks,? and the court said that such abstract
concepts are not articles. The closer an ?article? is to a physical,
tangible object the more likely it will satisfy the test, but the gulf
between tangible things and their representation in software is wide and
unexplored.

Can you give examples of what is and isn?t patentable under this
standard?

Consider three inventions, each using a mathematical procedure to
predict values. The first claims the math itself without any specific
application or result. A second uses it to simulate the behavior of an
airplane wing. The third invention uses the math to predict stock prices
based on historical data.

Even before Bilski, the first invention could not be patented ?
mathematical techniques are free to all. But under pre-Bilski law, the
others could be patented. In fact, many patents have been issued for
such applications. Now, a literal interpretation of Bilski may require
use of special-purpose hardware to save the third invention.

What should we do going forward?

Patents directed to business methods that do not involve the use of
computers or other machines are clearly at risk and, possibly, no longer
enforceable. The scope of patent protection under Bilski will be
determined over time, as the new standard is digested by lower courts.
Until then, companies that rely on patents to protect software or
business methods should reconsider whether their claims cover
implementations tied to a particular machine or involving the
transformation of an ?article.? They should also remain alert to new
developments: The Patent Office has already begun to revise its
standards in light of the Bilski decision.
------

regards,
alexander.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lisp is Sin
    ... inventors, because they aren't discovering new laws of physics that allow their invention, they're making creative leaps in the application of already-known principles. ... But I still don't see why I should pay you, when we both develop an invention, but you go to the patent office a year earlier maybe... ... Either the price is too low, so you aren't happy either, or it's too high, and I can't develop anything, because I have to pay millions for patents of giants I want to build my invention upon. ... them close to your chest and sue everyone than to broadly license your patent to anyone who asks. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Ten years later
    ... Because the whole knowledge of the humanity belongs to the humanity,and ... And patents *exactly* do that. ... measure of profit consists of *hurting* the sales of the inventor). ... That's why encouraging invention is such a good idea. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: OT: Clipping images from patent documents
    ... One of us doesn't understand how patents work ... even if a competitor figures out how to reproduce the ... invention, he is legally prohibited from doing so, but for a limited time. ... marginal cost relative to the fixed cost. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: [OT] Is open sourcing a good idea?
    ... And I wasn't speaking about software patents at all. ... > Any demanding career involves much time and hard work. ... Invention is a collective process that involves the ... Gruntwork is where open source is going to fit into my business model. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Lisp is Sin
    ... >>>nobody can copy my design without credit. ... >> With software patents, when writing software, you always would ... > the accuser then it becomes quite easy to copy a design and get away ... that the accused knowingly duplicated their patented invention. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
Loading