|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{navbox}}
| + | #REDIRECT [[Software does not make a computer a new machine]] |
| − | One method to used to circumvent the limits of software patentability, is to claim not "software" but "software and a computer". The goal is to present one non-innovative object (the computer) and one non-patentable object (the software) and get a patent on the combination. The argument made is that, when the software is put on the computer, the computer becomes a '''"new machine"'''.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One example of this logic being rejected by the US [[CAFC]] (appeals court), is the [[in re Alappat]] decision, which said:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"''As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat’s “rasterizer.”''"
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [[Choose your words]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://bosson.blogspot.com/2009/11/software-is-special-purpose-machines.html Software is a special purpose machine says microsoft]
| |
| − | * [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091029172602205 Correcting Microsoft's Bilski Amicus Brief -- How Do Computers Really Work?], [[Groklaw]] guest article
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{footer}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Pages with analysis of legal wordings]]
| |
