On Friday 13 August 2010 19:43:43 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > On Friday 13 August 2010 02:32 PM, jtd wrote: > >> Slight confusion here; which other next part are you referring > >> to? Section 3(k) of the Patent Act reads: > >> 3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this > >> Act: (k) a mathematical or business method or computer programme > >> per se or algorithms. > > > > I dont remember the exact words of the relevant clauses in the > > act, but there is a sentence which specifies "software running on > > a general purpose computer or programming machine". > > Ah, I think I understand the source of the confusion. The draft > Patent Manual of 2008 (which was successfully opposed, and of which > a meek, harmless version emerged when it came out of 'draft' status > in 2009) had language regarding software with "technical > application in the industry" > > being patentable: > > 4.4.11.6 The method claim should clearly define the steps > > involved in carrying out the invention. It should have a > > technical character. In other words, it should solve a technical > > problem. The claims should incorporate the details regarding the > > mode of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or > > software, for better clarity. The claim orienting towards a > > “process/method” should contain a hardware or machine limitation. > > Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or > > method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the > > particular hardware components. Thus, the “software per se” is > > differentiated from the software having its technical application > > in the industry. A claim directed to a technical process which > > process is carried out under the control of a programme (whether > > by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as relating > > to a computer programme as such. > > > > For example, “a method for processing seismic data, comprising > > the steps of collecting the time varying seismic detector output > > signals for a plurality of seismic sensors placed in a cable.” > > Here the signals are collected from a definite recited structure > > and hence allowable. > > Or perhaps you meant the submission that the folks at Knowledge > Commons had worked on highlighting GPC-runnable software as > software per se (my very crude reductionism).
Can you point me to the text of the act. The website http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ does not have anything. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
