Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Legal Since I want to get this out of my system: here's a set of proposals to fix (okay, replace) the current failing patent system. No lengthy diatribe or introduction, just a raw list.
Thread beginning with comment 525610
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by yokem55
by christian on Fri 6th Jul 2012 11:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by yokem55"
Member since:

Do you have a working legal definition of a "software" patent? What exists in the US are process/method patents implemented using a computer. Some of those methods could be implemented in hardware and hardware functions can be translated and implemented in software. Where do you draw the line and what working legal definition do you use? I know it when I see it?

Well, that's easy. When someone claims said patent is infringed, and you've done the "infringing" in software, then by definition you don't infringe.

I'd say anything that is an algorithm, whether implementable by hardware or not, is implementable using software on a general purpose computer, and hence a software patent.

Reply Parent Score: 1