ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Technical solutions not technical problems"
(If ideas must be "technical" to be patentable in a jurisdiction, then we must ensure that this criterion is applied to the idea or the solution, not the problem that's solved. Consider a lift who's c) |
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Cabinet for the blind example - does it matter if a book is read by hardware, software, or a person?) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| − | * [[Cabinet for the blind example]] | + | * [[Cabinet for the blind example]] - does it matter if a book is read by hardware, software, or a person? |
* [[Choose your words]] | * [[Choose your words]] | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
Revision as of 17:34, 26 October 2010
If ideas must be "technical" to be patentable in a jurisdiction, then we must ensure that this criterion is applied to the idea or the solution, not the problem that's solved.
Consider a lift who's configuration prevents it from stopping at the fourth floor, where meetings are held. This problem can be solved by modifying the electronics in the lift. But it can also be solved by holding meetings on the third floor.
If patents are allowed for solutions to technical problems, then both solutions would be patentable even though the latter isn't a technical innovation.
And then, of course, there must be a clarification that software ideas are not considered technical.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Cabinet for the blind example - does it matter if a book is read by hardware, software, or a person?
- Choose your words
