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"

External links