"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
| Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A
general purpose | computer is not a particular machine, and thus
innovative software processes | are unpatentable if they are tied
only to a general purpose computer.
I'd have to see how this goes but this may actually be the middle
ground we're after. I have no problem with software as part of a
particular system i.e. an algorithmic control system as part of a
device such as a braking system for a car, but general purpose
software on general purpose computer machinery, say new UI elements or
data structures should not be patentable.
You are clueless. And how do YOU propose to distinguish between "general
purpose" and "specialised"? There is not white line. What if the new
controls were specific to the "algorithm" data input? What if that
algorithm COULD be used in ALL braking control systems to save lives and
improve safety in general?
