Comments for AwakenIP http://www.awakenip.com Bringing Intellectual Property to Life Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:28 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on PTO Releases More Substantive Response to Bilski v. Kappos by Neal http://www.awakenip.com/?p=483&cpage=1#comment-2227 Neal Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:28 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=483#comment-2227 Software patents should be abolished altogether. Canada is one country, among a growing number of them, that does not allow for patenting of software per se. Because most, if not all major software companies are American, the US government actively lobbying for proliferation of software patents. http://www.pinskylaw.ca Software patents should be abolished altogether. Canada is one country, among a growing number of them, that does not allow for patenting of software per se. Because most, if not all major software companies are American, the US government actively lobbying for proliferation of software patents. http://www.pinskylaw.ca

]]> Comment on Bilski to be Expanded in RCT v. Microsoft by stolennomenclature http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466&cpage=1#comment-2213 stolennomenclature Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:34:52 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466#comment-2213 I;m sorry, but can someone please explain how society as a whole benefits from a law that serves to limit, restrict or slow down the adoption by society of a clever idea? If someone comes up with a good idea from which people can benefit, surely one would want to speed up and facilitate the adoption of the new idea, not impede it. How does trying to stop something good happening make any sense? If people have a strong urge to play music, they will play it - and if they have a strong urge to invent, then they will invent. And if not being able to make a huge load of cash out of an invention stops any particular inventer in their tracks, then sod them - someone else less greedy will come along and invent it. I;m sorry, but can someone please explain how society as a whole benefits from a law that serves to limit, restrict or slow down the adoption by society of a clever idea? If someone comes up with a good idea from which people can benefit, surely one would want to speed up and facilitate the adoption of the new idea, not impede it. How does trying to stop something good happening make any sense?
If people have a strong urge to play music, they will play it – and if they have a strong urge to invent, then they will invent. And if not being able to make a huge load of cash out of an invention stops any particular inventer in their tracks, then sod them – someone else less greedy will come along and invent it.

]]> Comment on PTO Releases More Substantive Response to Bilski v. Kappos by Mark Nowotarski http://www.awakenip.com/?p=483&cpage=1#comment-2203 Mark Nowotarski Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:50 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=483#comment-2203 It seems to me that applicants are currently providing examples of all three in their appeals to the BPAI. It seems to me that applicants are currently providing examples of all three in their appeals to the BPAI.

]]> Comment on Bilski to be Expanded in RCT v. Microsoft by Mark Nowotarski http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466&cpage=1#comment-2198 Mark Nowotarski Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:40:36 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466#comment-2198 <i>A method for the halftoning of gray scale images </i> In the days before computers, "halftoning an image” was clearly a physical transformation since the image itself was a physical object (film, negatives, prints, etc) and the halftoning itself involved reprinting the image. And so 100 years ago, this clam, as is, would clearly have satisfied the "transformation" test. See US 820,053 “Process for Making Half Tone Enlargements”. http://www.google.com/patents?id=yDdTAAAAEBAJ If the court were to hold this claim invalid now because the operation can be done in a computer, then they are saying that advances in the technical arts unrelated to the field of a particular invention (e.g. software) can render previously statutory subject matter (e.g. halftoning an image) unstatutory. A method for the halftoning of gray scale images
In the days before computers, “halftoning an image” was clearly a physical transformation since the image itself was a physical object (film, negatives, prints, etc) and the halftoning itself involved reprinting the image. And so 100 years ago, this clam, as is, would clearly have satisfied the “transformation” test. See US 820,053 “Process for Making Half Tone Enlargements”. http://www.google.com/patents?id=yDdTAAAAEBAJ

If the court were to hold this claim invalid now because the operation can be done in a computer, then they are saying that advances in the technical arts unrelated to the field of a particular invention (e.g. software) can render previously statutory subject matter (e.g. halftoning an image) unstatutory.

]]> Comment on Bilski to be Expanded in RCT v. Microsoft by Karen G. Hazzah http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466&cpage=1#comment-2188 Karen G. Hazzah Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:57:53 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466#comment-2188 >But the idea is abstract. The idea is abstract precisely because it is an idea. That is, ideas are abstract by definition. But how can you say that a set of instructions executing on a computer that implement the idea is abstract? Under what definition does this qualify as abstract? >Patent the computer if you must but not the mathematics or logic that it carries out. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you suggesting a patent on the PC that executes the software, rather than a patent on "the software"? It's the software in question that distinguishes this PC from another PC which is not running the software. Which means a patent to *that particular* PC is in some sense a patent on the logic that implements the idea. Ideas = abstract. Implementations of ideas by a computer = not abstract. >Does anyone believe blocking use of an idea of how to use a computer for 20 years promotes >use of the idea? Consider that a new computer process can be conceived, designed and created >in minutes. Does 20 years make any sense? There are lots of opinions on whether patents *in general* promote the progress. Even more opinions on whether patents *on software* promote the progress. Reasonable minds can differ on these two questions. If there are public policy reasons why software should not be patented, then this is important enough to have Congress make the decision rather than the courts. Even >But the idea is abstract.

The idea is abstract precisely because it is an idea. That is, ideas are abstract by definition. But how can you say that a set of instructions executing on a computer that implement the idea is abstract? Under what definition does this qualify as abstract?

>Patent the computer if you must but not the mathematics or logic that it carries out.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you suggesting a patent on the PC that executes the software, rather than a patent on “the software”?

It’s the software in question that distinguishes this PC from another PC which is not running the software. Which means a patent to *that particular* PC is in some sense a patent on the logic that implements the idea.

Ideas = abstract. Implementations of ideas by a computer = not abstract.

>Does anyone believe blocking use of an idea of how to use a computer for 20 years promotes
>use of the idea? Consider that a new computer process can be conceived, designed and created
>in minutes. Does 20 years make any sense?

There are lots of opinions on whether patents *in general* promote the progress. Even more opinions on whether patents *on software* promote the progress.

Reasonable minds can differ on these two questions. If there are public policy reasons why software should not be patented, then this is important enough to have Congress make the decision rather than the courts.
Even

]]> Comment on Bilski to be Expanded in RCT v. Microsoft by Robert Pogson http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466&cpage=1#comment-2181 Robert Pogson Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:13:10 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=466#comment-2181 But the idea is abstract. That is image = some calculation over bits of information is the same as compressed file = same calculation over bits of information or hash code = same calculation over bits of information. What a bit means and what the result of any logical or mathematical operation on the bits means is an abstraction. Doing the operation in your head or on paper or on a computer is not different. The scale or speed of application of an idea does not affect the nature of the idea nor its patentability. Does anyone believe blocking use of an idea of how to use a computer for 20 years promotes use of the idea? Consider that a new computer process can be conceived, designed and created in minutes. Does 20 years make any sense? Patent the computer if you must but not the mathematics or logic that it carries out. But the idea is abstract. That is image = some calculation over bits of information is the same as compressed file = same calculation over bits of information or hash code = same calculation over bits of information. What a bit means and what the result of any logical or mathematical operation on the bits means is an abstraction. Doing the operation in your head or on paper or on a computer is not different. The scale or speed of application of an idea does not affect the nature of the idea nor its patentability.

Does anyone believe blocking use of an idea of how to use a computer for 20 years promotes use of the idea? Consider that a new computer process can be conceived, designed and created in minutes. Does 20 years make any sense?

Patent the computer if you must but not the mathematics or logic that it carries out.

]]> Comment on Bilski Inventors Comment on Decision by anon http://www.awakenip.com/?p=443&cpage=1#comment-2030 anon Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:00:26 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=443#comment-2030 "I can hear it now: 'But the USPTO granted their patent!'" Nope. See page 3 of the opinion: "The patent examiner rejected petitioners' application... The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed.... The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the case en banc and affirmed." And then of course, the Supreme Court affirmed. This patent application was rejected at every step along the way; as it should have been. “I can hear it now: ‘But the USPTO granted their patent!’”

Nope. See page 3 of the opinion: “The patent examiner rejected petitioners’ application… The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed…. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the case en banc and affirmed.”

And then of course, the Supreme Court affirmed.

This patent application was rejected at every step along the way; as it should have been.

]]> Comment on First BPAI Decision Citing Bilski v. Kappos by TomG http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456&cpage=1#comment-2013 TomG Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:40:55 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456#comment-2013 I agree with Andrews, it is a filing system with no actual structure to rely on. I read Bilski as requiring some actual structure beyond the "computer apparatus" and "programming to ..." language. This was always the problem with the computer apparatus claims, there was no structure and it was so broad as to be useless. (Unless it was my client!) I agree with Andrews, it is a filing system with no actual structure to rely on. I read Bilski as requiring some actual structure beyond the “computer apparatus” and “programming to …” language. This was always the problem with the computer apparatus claims, there was no structure and it was so broad as to be useless. (Unless it was my client!)

]]> Comment on First BPAI Decision Citing Bilski v. Kappos by Mark Nowotarski http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456&cpage=1#comment-2012 Mark Nowotarski Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:40:17 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456#comment-2012 @JB I appreciate your position. Are copyright and trade secret enough protection? @JB

I appreciate your position. Are copyright and trade secret enough protection?

]]> Comment on First BPAI Decision Citing Bilski v. Kappos by andrews http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456&cpage=1#comment-2011 andrews Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:54:53 +0000 http://www.awakenip.com/?p=456#comment-2011 So far as I can tell, there is no actual invention in there. Assume for the moment that he is not just describing a file system. There is still nothing in there beyond abstract thought. Including ``computing aparatus'', without instructions on how to build the same, does not reduce it from abstract to practice. So far as I can tell, there is no actual invention in there. Assume for the moment that he is not just describing a file system. There is still nothing in there beyond abstract thought.

Including “computing aparatus”, without instructions on how to build the same, does not reduce it from abstract to practice.

]]>