ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Diamond v. Diehr ruling by US Supreme Court on 3 March 1981"
m (Diamond v. Diehr moved to Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA): new naming scheme) |
m (link) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)''' is the last case where the Supreme Court of the [[USA]] ruled on the definition of [[patentable subject matter]]. | + | '''Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)''' is the last case where the [[Supreme Court]] of the [[USA]] ruled on the definition of [[patentable subject matter]]. |
At issue in this case is a system for curing rubber with the aid of a computer and some mathematical formulas. The Supreme Court upheld the patent and this ruling is generally seen as increasing the scope for the patenting of software. | At issue in this case is a system for curing rubber with the aid of a computer and some mathematical formulas. The Supreme Court upheld the patent and this ruling is generally seen as increasing the scope for the patenting of software. | ||
Revision as of 23:28, 26 September 2009
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981) is the last case where the Supreme Court of the USA ruled on the definition of patentable subject matter.
At issue in this case is a system for curing rubber with the aid of a computer and some mathematical formulas. The Supreme Court upheld the patent and this ruling is generally seen as increasing the scope for the patenting of software.
Others, such as Ben Klemens, argue that the ruling confirms that software ideas are not patentable. (See ESP's 2008 Bilski amicus brief)
The ruling also confirms that "excluded from such patent protection are ... abstract ideas.".
