On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]>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. > The full text of that much criticized section of the Draft Patent Manual is at: http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/08/full-text-of-section-3k-relating-to.html The comments that Red Hat had submitted on the Draft Patent Manual are at: http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/05/ghost-of-software-patents-is-back.html > > 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). > Knowledge Commons had submitted an alternate definition for the term "computer programme per se." This definition was crafted with the help of SFLC and others. This definition is at: http://osindia.blogspot.com/2009/04/computer-programme-per-se-conundrum.html Venky
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
