On 2008-07-22, Phil Da Lick! <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ____/ Phil Da Lick! on Tuesday 22 July 2008 19:27 : \____
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Microsoft too holds this opinion. It's on record. It said this in court. "There
>> needs to be a device..."
>
> So why are they constantly filing junk patents? I think MS would prefer
> a tighter regime to be sure but they're still in favour of general
> purpose patents imo. They'll probably argue that windows constitutes a
> "system"?
Both as a defense and a hammer. It protects them from true competition filing
patent lawsuits (but not patent trolls as they have nothing competing) and
allows them to distribute FUD about patent liability.
They get to have their cake and eat it too.
|
|
