jtd wrote: > On Saturday 08 November 2008 17:42, Saswata Banerjee wrote: > > >> information from previous visits). The court decided that this >> method of doing business was not patentable. It had nothing to do >> with the software. >> > > True, as far as THIS case goes. But in handing down the judgement the > court has questioned the premises on which invention is judged. > Business methods claimed inventiveness without a tangible device. > Software tries to tie a general purpose device having no invention, > with software to claim a unique invention. A highily questionable > practice because software is not patentable. > > >> It would probably be like Barista saying they are now offering 2 >> cokies free with every caffe late and want to patent that offer so >> no one else can copy it. The court ruling says that this is a >> business process, even if no one else has done it before, it is not >> patentable. >> > > Even if Barista tied the BP to a machine on wheels that located you in > the shop and dispensed the extra cookies. It might be able to patent > that machine. But not the process of dispensing free cookies nor can > it stop someone from dispensing 1 or 1.5 or 2 cookies by hand, > another machine on an air cushion / halftracks, whatever > quite true. Further, even if barista patented the machine, someone can make another machine which does the same thing (giving 2 cookies) in a different manner.
Incidentally, till the patent law was revised 4-5 years ago, India was always protected process patents, not product patents. That is why Indian pharma companies could make the same medicine in a slightly different manner and sell it. Now, what the new ruling is saying is the opposite. Regards saswata > >> Not directly linked to software as such. >> However, many software patents have been filed in the past centered >> around the uniqueness of a business process. So that would probably >> be invalid if this doctrin is followed. >> > > > -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
