ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software does not make a computer a new machine"

(rm call for help, I think that part is right already)
(reviewed all sections, rewrote a lot)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
One way to pretend a software idea is a hardware idea is by describing the software idea and then adding "on a computer" or "on a storage medium".  The goal is to present a non-novel object (the computer) and a non-patentable object (the software) and get a patent on the combination.  The argument made is that, when the software is put on the computer, the computer becomes a "new machine" or an "improved machine".  So, instead of claiming this:
+
The "new machine" argument is an attempt by patent lawyers to fool examiners and judges by presenting a non-novel component (the computer) together with a non-patentable component (the software) and get a patent on the combination, even though neither component is actually patentable and the act of putting the software on a computer is trivial and expected.
 +
 
 +
The patent applications usually mention a computer or a "storage medium".  When defending such patents in court, patent lawyers sometimes describe the idea as creating a "new machine" because the computer appears to have gained a new ability, when in reality the computer could always perform these tasks.  So, instead of claiming this:
  
 
* a process which does ''X'', using a computer
 
* a process which does ''X'', using a computer
Line 6: Line 8:
  
 
* a computer which can do ''X''
 
* a computer which can do ''X''
−
 
−
This describes the same idea but tries to amalgamate the computer and the process (software), which are really completely separate.
 
  
 
This is sometimes called a '''Beauregard claim''' in the [[USA|US]].
 
This is sometimes called a '''Beauregard claim''' in the [[USA|US]].
Line 13: Line 13:
 
==In re Alappat (1994)==
 
==In re Alappat (1994)==
  
−
The patent in [[In re Alappat]], on using anti-aliasing to improve image display, was upheld by the [[CAFC]] because with this software, "''a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer''".
+
A patent of this type was upheld by the [[US CAFC]] in 1994 in the [[In re Alappat]] case.  The patent was on using anti-aliasing to improve image display, and the court agreed that "''a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer''".
  
 
==In re Beauregard (1995)==
 
==In re Beauregard (1995)==
Line 21: Line 21:
 
===Example "Beauregard claim"===
 
===Example "Beauregard claim"===
  
−
One example given by ''Patently-O'' is claim #2 of this patent application:<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/if-the-software-method-is-not-patentable-then-neither-is-the-computer-readable-medium.html</ref>
+
One example given by ''[[Patently-O]]'' is claim #2 of this patent application:<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/if-the-software-method-is-not-patentable-then-neither-is-the-computer-readable-medium.html</ref>
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
Line 49: Line 49:
 
==Analogies==
 
==Analogies==
  
−
===The point of these analogies===
+
* "''As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat’s “rasterizer.”''" (From the minority opinion in the [[US CAFC]]'s 1994 [[in re Alappat]] decision)
−
 
+
* A basic calculator does not become a new calculator when you punch in a new calculation for it to perform.
−
Our goal is to show how computers are the same as other things whose use cannot be patented.  When you use a record player, you get music.  The music might be technical, innovative, new, etc. but no one will ever get a patent on use of a record player.  This page collects other examples to show why running software on a computer can't be considered patentable.
+
* When you use a record player, you get music. The music might be technical, innovative, new, etc. but no one will ever get a patent on a combination of a record player and music.
−
 
 
−
===Player piano===
 
−
 
 
−
From the minority opinion in the [[CAFC]]'s 1994 [[in re Alappat]] decision:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat’s “rasterizer.”
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
=== Calculator ===
 
−
 
 
−
A basic calculator does not become a new calculator when you punch in a new calculation for it to perform.
 
−
 
 
−
=== Car ===
 
−
 
 
−
If a car which can drive anywhere has already been invented, no one should be able to patent a car that drives from Albequerque to San Diego, etc. -- the more general invention.
 
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==

Revision as of 17:56, 11 January 2013

The "new machine" argument is an attempt by patent lawyers to fool examiners and judges by presenting a non-novel component (the computer) together with a non-patentable component (the software) and get a patent on the combination, even though neither component is actually patentable and the act of putting the software on a computer is trivial and expected.

The patent applications usually mention a computer or a "storage medium". When defending such patents in court, patent lawyers sometimes describe the idea as creating a "new machine" because the computer appears to have gained a new ability, when in reality the computer could always perform these tasks. So, instead of claiming this:

  • a process which does X, using a computer

The patent lawyer writes this:

  • a computer which can do X

This is sometimes called a Beauregard claim in the US.

In re Alappat (1994)

A patent of this type was upheld by the US CAFC in 1994 in the In re Alappat case. The patent was on using anti-aliasing to improve image display, and the court agreed that "a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer".

In re Beauregard (1995)

In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Example "Beauregard claim"

One example given by Patently-O is claim #2 of this patent application:[1]

2. A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud in a credit card transaction between a consumer and a merchant over the Internet, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to carry out the steps of:

a) obtaining credit card information relating to the transactions from the consumer; and

b) verifying the credit card information based upon values of plurality of parameters, in combination with information that identifies the consumer, and that may provide an indication whether the credit card transaction is fraudulent, wherein each value among the plurality of parameters is weighted in the verifying step according to an importance, as determined by the merchant, of that value to the credit card transaction, so as to provide the merchant with a quantifiable indication of whether the credit card transaction is fraudulent,

wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes that one or more processors to carry out the further steps of;

[a] obtaining information about other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is identified with the credit card transaction;

[b] constructing a map of credit card numbers based upon the other transactions; and

[c] utilizing the map of credit card numbers to determine if the credit card transaction is valid.

3. A method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet comprising the steps of:

a) obtaining information about other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is identified with the credit card transaction;

b) constructing a map of credit card numbers based upon the other transactions and;

c) utilizing the map of credit card numbers to determine if the credit card transaction is valid.

Analogies

  • "As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat’s “rasterizer.”" (From the minority opinion in the US CAFC's 1994 in re Alappat decision)
  • A basic calculator does not become a new calculator when you punch in a new calculation for it to perform.
  • When you use a record player, you get music. The music might be technical, innovative, new, etc. but no one will ever get a patent on a combination of a record player and music.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References

  1. ↑ http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/if-the-software-method-is-not-patentable-then-neither-is-the-computer-readable-medium.html
Retrieved from "https://wiki.endsoftwarepatents.org/w/index.php?title=Software_does_not_make_a_computer_a_new_machine&oldid=33632"