Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is. 
> 
> I don't believe that's true. Certainly you can patent a new process to 
> build the same thing cheaper.
> 
> Do you have a credible citation for this?
> 
Hmm. Ok. Processes are included, it seems, but that doesn't alter the 
fact that some very precise exclusions where added when defining what is 
patentable, and software is a bloody close fit to that. The argument is 
that software is a description of abstractions in a lot of cases. I.e., 
the math the guy used on paper to describe the means to map something to 
a 3D point in space is "not" fundamentally different than the code used 
to do the same thing. So, you can't patent the process of calculating 
such a point, though you might the specific "way" you do it. Problem 
with a lot of patents has been that they cross that line by a wide 
fracking margin, attempting to patent, as in one person's example, the 
process of making bolts, not the *specific* bolt in question.

-- 
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