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"
({{navbox}}) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{navbox}}'''Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)''' was a case in the Supreme Court of the [[USA]]. | + | {{navbox}}'''Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)''' was a case in the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] of the [[USA]]. |
This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that [[software is math]]. | This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that [[software is math]]. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Patent infringement suits]] | [[Category:Patent infringement suits]] | ||
[[Category:USA]] | [[Category:USA]] | ||
Revision as of 22:52, 9 April 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"
