Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
>>
>> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
>>
>> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
>> improved the television?
>>
> Semantics.

Bingo! That's my point.  Guess what the whole court system is about? Semantics!

> making "trivial" improvements, 

How do you judge how "trivial" an improvement is? If you come up with a new 
calculation for an X-Ray machine's firmware that saves 30% more lives 
because the bad stuff shows up better, is that "trivial"?  It's math, but 
the math isn't what you're patenting. It's applying that math to improve the 
performace of that X-Ray machine that's patented. There's no patent on using 
the same math to improve the performance of your outboard motor.

> movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
> "improvement"? WTF? 

You're missing the point of the argument, probably on purpose.

You're arguing that a printing press shouldn't be patentable because all it 
does is add data to paper.

 > I am betting that your terminal's non-obvious design
> didn't involve taking an "existing" one, and just adding software, did 
> it? Had to design a new one that would accept such software?

No. My point was that *you* can't look at a patent and judge what is obvious 
*in retrospect*.

First Virtual invented an obvious way of handling "electronic commerce". Yet 
some of the greatest minds in the industry had spent years trying to figure 
out how to make it work. You could explain it to someone in 30 seconds, and 
they'd get this big s__t-eating grin as they realized what you were saying. 
But if it was obvious, there wouldn't have been annual conferences with 
hundreds of experts participating trying to discuss the best way of making 
it work.

> Anyway, the whole thing is a bloody mess, because, as with my poster 
> example, it gets damned fuzzy as to when software stops being "data" and 
> suddenly becomes "improvement", and therefor can be/requires patent. 
> Where is that line exactly? 

Well, yes, that's my point. You can't just say "it's software, it's not an 
improvement."   And you can't say "now that I see the answer, it's obvious."

> Oh, and remember, we are using the patent 
> judges definition of "obvious" not the one you or me would, 

That's also what I've been saying, repeatedly. "Obvious" to a patent 
examiner has a specific legal meaning independent of how easy it is to come 
up with. That *is* the definition I use when talking about patents.

Look at it this way.  Networking is just moving bits around, right? Is it 
really an "improvement" to move them faster? Do you think 1Mbps ethernet 
does excatly the same thing as 100Gbps ethernet does, only slower? I mean, 
there's nothing the phone system does that a human being couldn't do with a 
pencil and paper, only faster.  There's nothing wireless networking does 
that a wired network couldn't do, only with wires.  Why isn't "networking 
without wires" just as unpatentable as "poster without paper"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message