[T]here is no abstract idea exception in the older cases, and the exception exists today only because of careless citations to the older cases.
That's Brian Galvin, patent agent, patent software consultant, owner of multiple issued and pending patent applications.
He argues:
A computer embodying an abstract idea should be presumed useful, and the analysis would then move on to whether it is novel (§102) and nonobvious (§103). But the same abstract idea would not itself be patented; one could use it in research, or could use it in a mathematical proof, or do whatever one wants, except using it in a computer configured in such a way as to infringe any patent being considered. This approach is
statutorily correct and gives full scope to Congress’ plainly stated plenary scope for §101 (i.e., “any” means what it says).
Generally, the briefs do not pay enough attention to the border of Copyright and Patent law. Galvin does mention it:
Copyright exists to protect expression, and patent law exists to protect new and useful inventions. It is the Constitutional order of things, and the will of Congress as expressed since 1793, that any new and useful machine, manufacture, process (or “art” before 1952), or composition of matter be given patent protection if it meets the other requirements of the statute.
No comments:
Post a Comment