Clarke Sideroad <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe software should not be patent-able ...
And this is part of the "system is broken" - especially in the USA. A novel business process which happens to use computers/software should (IMO) be patentable under the same rules of prior art/obviousness as any physical device. What seems to be happening is that non-novel processes are being labelled as new when "... when performed by computer processing" is tacked on. That and the system where (it appears) the US patent office has a policy of accepting all applications (unless really bad) and leaving it to courts to negate them later. That's bad, and puts a huge burden on someone accused of infringing an invalid patent - a burden that only the larger businesses can deal with, and even then many will decide it's cheaper to pay the blackmail (for that's what it is) rather than fight it. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
