tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post2242719743154918182..comments2016-12-04T03:06:36.168-08:00Comments on Paul's Pontifications: Bilski says software is not patentablePaul Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07353083601285449293noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-42361986307527962922011-05-04T06:22:13.578-07:002011-05-04T06:22:13.578-07:00"I can provide the mathematical formula for a..."I can provide the mathematical formula for a chair using boolean logic and the equation for an infinite plane. That does not make the invention non-patentable. Valid patents, generally speaking, are novel and non-obvious applications of the laws of nature and/or mathematics."<br /><br />While I am somewhat skeptical that you can provide the mathematical formula for a chair in boolean logic, I'll stipulate that you can, for the purposes of furthering this discussion.<br /><br />If you can do that, *and* the design of said chair is novel and non-obvious, *and* your formula describes a physical object, or a process to create a physical object, then yes, it is patentable.<br /><br />You should not be able to patent software for the same reason that you cannot patent a formula for an infinite plane...both of the patent descriptions are completely abstract (i.e. there is no tangible result).<br /><br />To inject the missing piece to your closing sentence, I would say "Valid patents, generally speaking, are novel and non-obvious applications of the laws of nature and/or mathematics embodied in a machine or process that produces a tangible result."<br /><br />Generally, this is wrapped up in the machine-or-transformation test which is a rethinking of the earlier "concrete, useful, and tangible" test.<br /><br />Software *never* produces a tangible result, is not a machine, and is not capable of transforming anything. Software is instructions, formulas, algorithms...math written by human artists known as programmers.adrianstovallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-11322677647238762542011-04-30T18:53:13.883-07:002011-04-30T18:53:13.883-07:00Overall great summary of Benson, Flook and Diehr. ...Overall great summary of Benson, Flook and Diehr. One correction on Diehr: You write "The patent was upheld" which does not accurately describe the decision.<br /><br />A patent must pass three tests to be upheld: It must be statutory subject matter, novel, and non-obvious. The Supreme Court only examined whether the patent was statutory subject matter. The majority wrote, "It may later be determined that the respondents' process is not deserving of patent protection because it fails to satisfy the statutory conditions of novelty under §102 or nonobviousness under §103." So they didn't exactly uphold the patent.Bruce Lewishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13928723372104657874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-26098042577025173372010-07-08T23:03:28.993-07:002010-07-08T23:03:28.993-07:00Consulting opportunities for Haskell programmers i...Consulting opportunities for Haskell programmers in coming patent fights, then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com