On 27-Nov-2000 Paul Jarc wrote:
> Programs - or rather, algorithms - *are* patentable in the US. You
> may think this is a ridiculous idea, and I may agree with you, but
> it's true nonetheless.
That's not true. Algorithms are specifically _not_ patentable
in the US. What _is_ patentable is a device consisting of a (any)
computer and an algorithm. It is true that to the non-patent
professional this is the same as patenting the algorithm, but
it is not. If the applicant has not correctly written the claims,
then a specific application of the algorithm might not be covered.
If the claims are too broad, the patent will be re-examined, or
will be held invalid in court.
What remains is that _any_ patent, whether ultimately valid or
not, allows the patent holder to force their competitors to
either stop selling a product, or engage in often lengthy, and
possibly expensive, legal procedures.
The other problems are that the onus for disclosing prior art
lies with the applicant, and that the PTO is only obliged to
search its own databases for possible prior art. As devices
comprising software have only recently become patentable, there
isn't much "official" prior art, and the examiner then relies
on the disclosures made by the applicant. It then becomes
the responsibility of those affected by the patent to use
the courts to invalidate it.
In short, in the current scheme of things, the patent system
favours the big guys with lawyers.
Take care,
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
