On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:58:47 Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > 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.
Using fancy hardware with software makes the whole patentable 4.11.8 An invention consisting of hardware along with software or computer program in order to perform the function of the hardware may be considered patentable. e.g., embedded systems. So I invent "gizmo to dig a hole". which has a diamond hardened tip - commonly available, and an embedded motor controller - commonly available, that has software that jiggles the tip in a way that prevents wear and tear of the tip, increasing the life of the tip by 1000. This whole gizmo is now patentable, it having used a unique method to extend the life of the tip by 1000. Along comes RMS and writes EMACS to dig holes, that uses a diamond hardened tip, and a motorcontroller running on an i2c bus, hooked to the i2c bus of a standard pc motherboard. He now violates the patent. If you did the emacs thing first it would not be patentable, but if the order was reversed, and you did not do the obvious thing to do, but instead embedded the whole thing and won a patent, the patent holder now prevents everyone from doing the obvious. The moment you use a programmable device (or software) to bring uniqueness, no matter how you disguise it, you open a can of worms. > > 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-relatin >g-to.html 4.11.10 "However, claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed." They have again missed the point. A mathematical method for fourier transforms is not patentable. But the same method to enhance images, which is actually exactly the same fourier transform, (and fourier or gauss or any of the other Mathematician could not care less about the physical phenomenon which the data represents) qualifies. which is exactly what any software does - use mathematical methods to execute on a programmable hardware, incase of embedded systems trivially modified to provide the required functionality. The whole of which can span a continuum from almost total hardware to almost total software. As an example we have baseband processors in a mobile phone. A few years ago they were real integrated circuits, several of them infact. Today you have a general purpose DSP and software, the two replacing all that hardware. Patenting those Integrated Circuits was fine. I could use the maths and come up with a suitable concotion of ICs that would be utterly different from yours. different from your The point I am driving at here is why is there any mention of software? If it is not patentatable, why does the patent office care that there is software in an invention. Subject to no claim of software inventiveness, any invention in computers will be treated exactly like any invention in any other field. Bringing up software in all sorts of ridiculous ways, only creates unnecessary confusion. This is amply visible in some of the patents that i have quoted earlier where samsung (amongst other similiar cases) has been granted a patent on some servo system for disk head alignment and data recovery. There is nothing uniuqe in the mechanical or electrical elements. The uniqueness comes from software, and somebody cn replicate a similar effect with a whole continuum of software and hardware. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
