Patrick Elliott wrote:
> argued by the Groklaw site too. 

I disagree that most of what the groklaw article talks about is relevant. 
When they're arguing about abstract computer theory, they're intentionally 
ignoring the fact that (for example) isomorphic changes can actually be 
novel and inventive.

For example, you could argue that patenting the layout of a particular 
typewriter keyboard should be allowed, especially if it gives a significant 
improvement over previous keyboard layouts, right?

If you're going to insist that it's impossible even theoretically to improve 
a device in a novel way by modifying the software it is running, then we'll 
have to disagree.

Which is not to say that I think software should be patentable. Just that 
excluding it merely because it is software doesn't make sense to me.

> And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have wanted 
> patents? 

About half. The half that lost the patent case in court, in particular. And 
that's why we have precedents. You can't argue that this case applies to him 
and an identical case doesn't apply to you.

But sure, in general? Go for it. That's what the legislature and judges 
decide, and that's what's before the courts now.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message