Difference between revisions of "Parker v. Flook ruling by US Supreme Court on 22 June 1978"
(→External links: Category:Court cases and litigation) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)''' was a case in the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] of the [[USA]]. The court found the patent invalid. | |
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 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Excerpts== | ==Excerpts== | ||
| − | + | <blockquote>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.<br />(the ruling's first line)</blockquote> | |
| − | + | <blockquote>[t]he process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm [...] must be new and useful.''" at 591</blockquote> | |
| − | + | <blockquote>[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</blockquote> | |
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
| − | [[Category:Court | + | [[Category:Court ruling analyses]] |
| − | [[Category:USA]] | + | [[Category:Court rulings by US Supreme Court]] |
| + | [[Category:Court rulings in the USA]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:39, 2 August 2012
Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) was a case in the Supreme Court of the USA. The court found the patent invalid.
This ruling confirmed that math is not patentable, which is useful when arguing that software is math.
This was the second of the patentable subject matter "trilogy", along with Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) and Diamond v. Diehr (1981, USA).
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
