ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978"
(excerpts) |
(This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that software is math.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)''' was a case in the Supreme Court of the [[USA]]. | '''Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)''' was a case in the Supreme Court of the [[USA]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that [[software is math]]. | ||
==Excerpts== | ==Excerpts== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * "''Respondent's method for updating alarm limits during catalytic conversion processes, in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula, held not patentable under 101 of the Patent Act.''" (the ruling's first line) | ||
* "''[t]he process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm [...] must be new and useful.''" at 591 | * "''[t]he process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm [...] must be new and useful.''" at 591 | ||
Line 7: | Line 11: | ||
* "''[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance''" because "''[a] competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula''" | * "''[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance''" because "''[a] competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula''" | ||
+ | ==External links== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=437&invol=584 The ruling: PARKER v. FLOOK, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)] | ||
Revision as of 08:39, 28 March 2010
Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) was a case in the Supreme Court of the USA.
This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that software is math.
Excerpts
- "Respondent's method for updating alarm limits during catalytic conversion processes, in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula, held not patentable under 101 of the Patent Act." (the ruling's first line)
- "[t]he process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm [...] must be new and useful." at 591
- "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance" because "[a] competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula"