ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Cabinet for the blind example"

(References: ==External links== * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html in defense of software patents - part 2], 14 Sep 2010, '''Martin Goetz''' * [)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
** [[Anti-lock braking example]]
 
** [[Anti-lock braking example]]
 
* [[Analogies]]
 
* [[Analogies]]
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
 +
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html in defense of software patents - part 2], 14 Sep 2010, '''Martin Goetz'''
 +
* [http://www.planetpatent.com/Patents/US6052663.pdf US6052663] - "''Reading system which reads aloud from an image representation of a document''", granted 18 Apr 2000
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 09:18, 26 October 2010

In the cabinet for the blind example, a person develops a cabinet which reads books out loud. What's in the cabinet? Does the contents of the cabinet change whether the idea is a patentable invention? The cabinet could contain:

  • Innovative hardware
  • Software running on a standard computer
  • A person

1980 amicus brief from Martin Goetz

When arguing that software should be patentable, Martin Goetz presented the example thusly:[1]

An inventor demonstrates his new invention to his patent attorney with great pride; he has developed a cabinet for reading books out loud to the blind. The cabinet contains both a reading and talking computer. After the demonstration, the patent attorney responds:

What's inside the cabinet? Did you build it with software or hardware (a stored program or hardware circuitry)? If built with a hardware program, your machine would be patentable. But if you built it with a stored program, the Patent Office would say it was merely mathematics and, therefore, unpatentable.”

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References