Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And, the point here is, the argument made, sadly effectively by some, 
>> is that loading software onto a machine makes it a new machine. It 
>> doesn't. 
> 
> I don't think people make that argument. If they did, they wouldn't be 
> worried about the Beloski case, or whatever it's called. Right now, you 
> don't have to patent only "a new machine". You patent any machine 
> running that software.
> 
>> Loading them into a machine doesn't make the instructions a "new" 
>> machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.
> 
> Can you show me anywhere that someone claimed that loading instructions 
> into a machine makes it a new machine?
> 
Benhart case:

"There is one further rationale used by both the board and the examiner, 
namely, that the provision of new signals to be stored by the computer 
does not make it a new machine, i. e. it is structurally the same, no 
matter how new, useful and unobvious the result. This rationale really 
goes more to novelty than to statutory subject matter but it appears to 
be at the heart of the present controversy. To this question we say that 
if a machine is programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is 
physically different from the machine without that program; its memory 
elements are differently arranged. The fact that these physical changes 
are invisible to the eye should not tempt us to conclude that the 
machine has not been changed. If a new machine has not been invented, 
certainly a "new and useful improvement" of the unprogrammed machine has 
been, and *Congress has said in 35 U.S.C. § 101 that such improvements 
are statutory subject matter for a patent.* It may well be that the vast 
majority of newly programmed machines are obvious to those skilled in 
the art and hence unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We are concluding 
here that such machines are statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that 
claims defining them must be judged for patentability in light of the 
prior art."

You get that. Congress accepted the definition, and concluded that 
"improvements" to a machine, which involve loading software onto it, 
**changes** the machine, thus making it a patentable product. The case 
in question doesn't even deny this possibility, it just makes the 
argument I do, which is that such things are, "obvious to those skilled 
in the art and hence unpatentable". You are saying that this is "not" a 
legal grounds to make something unpatentable. So, we have, "Stuffing 
instructions into a machine makes it new, therefor patentable", and, 
"Sorry, but even if this is a blindingly obvious solution for people 
that know how the machine works, its still patentable."

So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?

I am sure I linked the groklaw page talking about this some place, but 
maybe I didn't..

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message