Difference between revisions of "Legislation in the USA"
('''Legislation in the USA''' gives no direct indication about whether software ideas should be patentable. Discussion thus usually focusses on case law in the USA.) |
(→USC 287(c): |USA, legislation in the (sorting)) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
| − | [[Category:Legislation by country]] | + | [[Category:Legislation by country|USA, legislation in the]] |
Revision as of 12:31, 9 May 2010
Legislation in the USA gives no direct indication about whether software ideas should be patentable. Discussion thus usually focusses on case law in the USA.
Contents
Relevant parts of US Code
USC 101 (patentable subject matter)
About "Statutory categories", i.e. patentable subject matter), the legislation says:[1]
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title [35 USCS Sects. 1 et seq.].
The word "process" was added in the 1950s. Most software patents and business methods are claimed as a "process" (example: Bilksi) but some are claimed as a "machine" (example: State Street).
USC 102
About prior art.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/bpai-under-102e.html
USC 103
Nonobviousness analysis.
(see patently-o's discussion of nonobvious and anticipated)
USC 273
About "prior user rights for business methods".
USC 284
USC 285
Attorney fees
USC 287(c)
Medical activities exempted from remedies - or patentable but the doctor isn't liable.
