Galt's Gulch

Contradictions in the Patentability of Numbers

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 8 months ago to Legislation
12 comments | Share | Flag

We need intellectual property rights. The mystic-altruists of the US Congress have never been able to deliver that. Therefore the US Patent and Trademark Office is adrift in a floating abstraction.
SOURCE URL: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/08/contradictions-in-patentability-of.html

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 8 months ago
    A software program is not a number. A is A but S is not N.
    It takes a lot of time, intellect and risk to write a high quality software program that enough people will want for the thing they need it to do. What happens to the final product is totally up to the owner(s).

    If today's software programs are some number, then, like the writing on THE social contract, no one has seen it and no one knows what it is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
    Mike suggests that you can get a patent on a number. This is clearly incorrect. A number per se is descriptive. The ones and zeros Mike is pointing to are not patentable per se, they are only patentable if they are used to wire (change voltages) in an electronic circuit and if this circuit performs a useful function. Leave it to Mike to purposely blur/ignore this distinction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
    As usual a rambley post in which it is difficult to discern the point. The conclusion that a software bug patch should invalidate a patent is like suggesting that failing to correctly drill the hole for the air intake on a carburetor, invalidates a patent on the carburetor. Or suggesting that incorrectly wiring an XOR gate should invalidate a patent on an XOR circuit. A software patch is most likely an error in implementation, not an error in logic. This could be as simple as not putting a comma in the right place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 8 months ago
      As a lawyer, you know that commas are consequential. It is possible that the thing just does not work at all. Since 1880, no actual material device or product is required, but only plans. Amazon has a patent for photographing on a white background - ridiculous as that is. But suppose it does not work at all. How would the examiner know? Then, they fix the problem and file a new patent application. Does that revelation not impact the previous error? You cannot file a deed for land which does not exist at the place described.
      (Amazon's patent at Ars Technica here:
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/...)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 8 months ago
    "Every computer program creates a new mechanism, a new system of logic gates “burned” (temporarily) into an array of integrated circuits." Should every program running on every machine - my Dell being different from your HP - be given a separate patent?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo