Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
User Rank
Software patent
Sanjib.A   6/21/2014 1:30:03 PM
" The justices ruled that the software was generic and did not make technical advancements or improve how the computer functioned." It talks about anything that does not improve the technology behind how the computer functions today would not be eligible for winning a patent. The statement itself sounds very broad to me. The same could be applicable for the hardware too...correct? I am not sure if I have understood correctly...e.g. how about innovations/novelties related to how the data is presented to the users?

User Rank
An Intellectually Bankrupt Opinion
anon8743502537   6/20/2014 11:36:31 PM
I think judge Thomas put a pubic hair in my software patents.

This decision provides no guidance whatsoever on what is "too abstract."  Why should software be treated differently from other methods?  The patent statutes clearly allow methods to be patented and isn't most software just methods performed on a computer?

The Supreme Court sidesteped precedent in Diamond v Diehr that stated that the novelty of claim steps should not be considered when evaluating whether a claim is statutory.

They used Mayo v Prometheus as a template and seem to say that automating a manual process is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. Why they didn't use 103 is anyone's guess.

The court here conflated the issues of obviousness (35 USC 103) and statutory subject matter (35 USC 101).  They are supposed to be two separate inquiries.  If these claims were so conventional, other than the addition of the computer, they should have been invalidated using 35 USC 103 as being obvious.  But the claims were not that obvious in my opinion.  By using a computer, the order of certain steps was changed due to the speed of the computer.

I have included a more in depth analysis of this case in my history of software patents at patentsusa.blogspot.com


User Rank
Re: About time
przem   6/20/2014 5:49:36 PM
One of the problems with the fashionable Intelectual Property concept is that it commingles patents, copyrights and trademarks. Disney is all about copyrights---I don't think they have many patents, especially in the high tech area. Having said that, they do indeed make excessive use of various extensions granted in the copyright law, in my opinion.

I will grant you a point that both patents and copyrights are being stretched and abused beyond their original role. The basic copyright and patent protections are reasonable---it's just all the amendments and tweaks that the influential players lobbied for and procured that are hurting us.

User Rank
Re: About time
LarryM99   6/20/2014 4:18:13 PM
Agreed. At one point I accepted the argument that strong patent protection was the mark of an advanced business environment, but I now realize that too much of it is the mark of one that is in decline. Having a good idea at some point in the past doesn't mean that you get to live off it indefinitely. That also applies to Disney, particularly since they are mostly living off of stuff that they stole from the public domain in the first place.

Larry M.

User Rank
About time
sixscrews   6/20/2014 1:03:51 PM
Patents are for things you can hold in your hand or, at least, have a physical existence either in hardware or software that affects the external hardware.  Patents that cover a numinous exchange of undefined ideas aren't patents - they are junk that clogs up the system and more food for trolls.

For once the Supremes got it right.


User Rank
Re: Jual Es Krim
DrFPGA   6/20/2014 12:13:04 PM
Yep- we need a way for a comment to flag possible spam. Can that be added? Maybe the Rate It button could include 'SPAM' as an option...

User Rank
Re: Jual Es Krim
prabhakar_deosthali   6/20/2014 7:56:14 AM
I was referring to this comment as SPAM

User Rank
Dear Editor
prabhakar_deosthali   6/20/2014 2:33:04 AM
This looks to be some kind of SPAM!

<<   <   Page 3 / 3

IoT Network Shoot Out
July 16, 1pm EDT Thursday

Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.

Brought to you by

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Special Video Section
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...
General-purpose DACs have applications in instrumentation, ...
Linear Technology demonstrates its latest measurement ...
Demos from Maxim Integrated at Electronica 2014 show ...
Bosch CEO Stefan Finkbeiner shows off latest combo and ...
STMicroelectronics demoed this simple gesture control ...
Keysight shows you what signals lurk in real-time at 510MHz ...
TE Connectivity's clear-plastic, full-size model car shows ...
Why culture makes Linear Tech a winner.