Search for "computer implemented invention" At the EPO, software as such is also not patentable, but a computer implemented invention can be patentable if it provides a technical effect that goes further to the normal functions of the computer ;-)
rjack wrote: > The FOSS community has gone to great length to promote the specter of a > strawman to be greatly feared -- the computer software patent. > > It appears that a computer "software patent" is a term that has entered > the World without benefit of the federal courts or Congress. A Google > search (admittedly not authoritative) reveals no court opinion or > federal statute that uses the phrase "software patent". Especially > telling is a search of published opinions of the C.A.F.C. Searching for > the caption of the Federal Circuit's official opinions and the term > "software patent" reveals no hits: > > "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" "software patent" > > This is so because there is no such thing as a computer software patent. > Software code in isolation is not patentable. It may only be used as a > step in conjunction with other claims. > > The Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 makes > this point crystal clear: > > "Our conclusion regarding respondents' claims is not altered by the fact > that in several steps of the process a mathematical equation and a > programmed digital computer are used. . . > > In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical > formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing > synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known > mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that > equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of > that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their > claimed process. . . > > Arrhenius' equation is not patentable in isolation, but when a process > for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more efficient > solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred > at the threshold by 101. . . > > In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for > patent protection under 101, their claims must be considered as a whole. > It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and > then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is > particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps > in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the > combination were well known and in common use before the combination was > made." > > Computer code may not be patented in isolation but only claimed when > incorporated as a step in conjunction with other claims to form a truly > patentable process. > > The computer "software patent" is a true urban legend . . . created to > promote an agenda for the abolishment of intellectual property. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
