Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th May 2012 09:38 UTC
Permalink for comment 518503
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-02-19
The problem is that the things in question shouldn't be patented at all.
A hardware patent is a kind of source code - more of pseudocode, as you have to implement the details yourself, but still... (I'd actually like to see hardware patents go into more detail, though, on things like that.) It's an interesting idea, in that it gives how to make a novel thing to the public domain, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on that thing.
Software patents can't really be called pseudocode at all, though. They tend to patent the concept of something, not an implementation.
This "data tapping" patent, for instance, is an example of a simple concept being implemented. They hook a parser up to a menu of actions. They do explain the basic structure of their concept, but they don't demonstrate specific methods for implementing their concept.
Really, on software patents, the patent application should include source code.