Software Patents
rjack
influenced by the debate over the protection (or lack thereof) for
intellectual property concerning digital matters.
It is instructive to review the legal history of the patent-copyright
dichotomy concerning computer program protection. Most telling is this
Supreme Court ruling in 1978:
“To a large extent our conclusion is based on reasoning derived from
opinions written before the modern business of developing programs for
computers was conceived. The youth of the industry may explain the
complete absence of precedent supporting patentability. Neither the
dearth of precedent, nor this decision, should therefore be interpreted
as reflecting a judgment that patent protection of certain novel and
useful computer programs will not promote the progress of science and
the useful arts, or that such protection is undesirable as a matter of
policy. Difficult questions of policy concerning the kinds of programs
that may be appropriate for patent protection and the form and duration
of such protection can be answered by Congress on the basis of current
empirical data not equally available to this tribunal.”[FN19].
[FN19] Articles assessing the merits and demerits of patent protection
for computer programming are numerous. See, e. g., Davis, Computer
Programs [437 U.S. 584, 596] and Subject Matter Patentability, 6
Rutgers J. of Computers and Law 1 (1977), and articles cited therein, at
2 n. 5. Even among those who favor patentability of computer programs,
there is questioning of whether the 17-year protection afforded by the
current Patent Act is either needed or appropriate. See id., at 20 n.
133.; PARKER v. FLOOK, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
Twenty-nine years later Congress is still sitting on its collective ass
while the rest of the World moves on. Did you ever wonder why the U.S.
is losing its competitive edge in the global struggle? Well it is not
because of Congress. It is because the American people passively sit by
and allow this kind of malfeasance to fester.
I have written my legislative representatives concerning intellectual
property in the Digital Age. Everyone who has an interest in the debate,
regardless of where their opinion falls, should express their opinion to
their respective congressional representatives. Why wait for another
twenty–nine years for those non-elected, life-time appointed Supremes to
decide the peoples' business?
Those who don’t communicate with their representatives and then vote
have no right to subsequently bitch.
rjack
pltrgyst
>>Those who don’t communicate with their representatives and then vote
>have no right to subsequently bitch.
Yeah, they do. That's what our country's all about.
-- Larry
Lee Hollaar
>Twenty-nine years later Congress is still sitting on its collective ass
>while the rest of the World moves on.
Perhaps Congress hasn't acted on software patents because it is not
unhappy with the state of the law.
There is no reason to believe the Congress is unaware of software and
business patents being allowed. In fact, in 1999 as part of the last
patent reform bill, it added 35 U.S.C. 273 to add a prior user right
for business methods, because it was concerned that people who had
independently invented a business method but kept it a trade secret
because they felt that it was not patentable would be hurt by others
who might later get a patent on the same business method.
Clearly Congress was aware of business method patents, felt that they
should be allowed, but needed to correct a possible problem.
And it is not reasonable to have a patent statute that lists the types
of technology that is to be protected, beyond broad categories. By
definition, patents are concerned with new technologies. It would
punish the very inventors of new technologies if they had to wait for
Congress to list their technology before they could receive protection.
rjack
> In article <epWdnQrtSMWJyejb...@insightbb.com> rjack <rjack@com> writes:
>> Twenty-nine years later Congress is still sitting on its collective ass
>> while the rest of the World moves on.
>
> Perhaps Congress hasn't acted on software patents because it is not
> unhappy with the state of the law.
Perhaps. . .
Article I of the Constitution was drafted to establish the *legislative*
powers of the Federal government -- it is directed at Congress and not
the Judiciary.
Art I sec. 8 cl. 8:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power. . .
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;"
The job of the judiciary is to define the *boundries* of Congress's
powers established by the clause -- not to enumerate the *specifics* of
implementation. The clause is one of the most specific in Article I
directed at the legislative branch.
Because Congress is *happy* with a vague and inchoate law is no excuse
for incompetence. We have thirteen appellate circuits going in different
directions concerning the copyright/patent protection provided for
software. The Federal Circuit changes its mind every few months. The
trial lawyers love this situation, businesses -- especially small
businesses -- are intimidated and bled. IBM, Microsoft, and a few well
heeled, lawyered-up corporations bully the rest of the business world.
Perhaps you are happy with Congress being happy with the state of the
law. I'm not. I still believe the Congress should work for the people
and not the other way around.
Intellectual property has a valuable place in a capitalist economy.
The citizens through their representatives should define the specifics
of the role IP plays in that economy -- not a handful of lifetime
appointed lawyers in black robes.
rjack
Lee Hollaar
>Because Congress is *happy* with a vague and inchoate law is no excuse
>for incompetence.
It seem to be happy with the list of things protectable by patent.
It adopted the list in 1790, and the only change has been to update
the term "art" to "process."
rjack
You seem to be missing my point about Congress being "happy". The
present Congress is happy to sit on its ass and do nothing. The latest
reputable poll states that all of twenty-nine percent of U.S. citizens
are happy with the job Congress is doing.
Democratic principles dictate that legislators serve at the pleasure of
the voters. Anytime Congress wishes to escape responsibility for
difficult issues they pass a vaguely worded law and then leave it to the
courts to absorb the political heat for any specific interpretation.
Anothr similar tactic is to pass a law without the funding or means to
enforce it. Sixty-one percent of voters are now tired of this kind of crap.
One result of this responsibility ducking is that our intellectual
property laws end up for the most part reflecting the philosophical
views and prejudices of various appellate judges (especially the Federal
Circuit) and influential law professors.
Let's refer back to the Supreme Court in Parker v. Flook at the
beginning of this thread:
"Difficult questions of policy concerning the kinds of programs that may
be appropriate for patent protection and the form and duration of such
protection can be answered by Congress on the basis of current empirical
data not equally available to this tribunal.”; PARKER v. FLOOK, 437 U.S.
584 (1978).
See the "[C]an be answered by Congress. . ."? The Supreme Court is
*obviously* declining to *LEGISLATE* for the Congress -- could it be any
clearer?. That was twenty-nine years ago. That's over a fucking
*generation* ago!!!!!!!! Still no answer from Congress -- twenty years
into the Age of the Internet.
Just because the Congress is as happy as a pig in shit to sit and
endlessly quibble doesn't nullify the principle that they are elected to
*LEGISLATE* -- that's their defined job.
rjack
Lee Hollaar
>Let's refer back to the Supreme Court in Parker v. Flook at the
>beginning of this thread:
>
>"Difficult questions of policy concerning the kinds of programs that may
>be appropriate for patent protection and the form and duration of such
>protection can be answered by Congress on the basis of current empirical
>data not equally available to this tribunal.”; PARKER v. FLOOK, 437 U.S.
>584 (1978).
And, by not enacting special legislation regarding patents for software,
Congress has said that it should be treated the same as anything else
that can receive a utility patent -- same form, same duration. And
therefore special legislation is not necessary.
But, as I said, it's not that Congress has done nothing. (Ignoring you
is not the same as doing nothing.) It enacted a special prior user
right for business method patents. And a couple of years after Parker
v. Flook, it amended 17 U.S.C. 117 to address computer programs, and
in 1998 admended it again to reverse a court decision that it didn't
agree with.
>See the "[C]an be answered by Congress. . ."? The Supreme Court is
>*obviously* declining to *LEGISLATE* for the Congress -- could it be any
>clearer?. That was twenty-nine years ago. That's over a fucking
>*generation* ago!!!!!!!! Still no answer from Congress -- twenty years
>into the Age of the Internet.
>
>Just because the Congress is as happy as a pig in shit to sit and
>endlessly quibble doesn't nullify the principle that they are elected to
>*LEGISLATE* -- that's their defined job.
You seem to ignore the facts, perhaps because they don't fit with your
rant. And you seem to assume that we have a continual need for new
laws, even if Congress feels that the old ones are working reasonably
well.
But you are certainly free to suggest to your senators or representative
or whoever might listen to you legislation that addresses the problems
that you perceive. Just as you are free to suggest possible legal
theories to the courts, in the form of amicus briefs. Whether anybody
listens to you is another matter.
rjack
>
>
> And, by not enacting special legislation regarding patents for
> software, Congress has said that it should be treated the same as
> anything else that can receive a utility patent -- same form, same
> duration. And therefore special legislation is not necessary.
At least we agree Congress has enacted nothing to clarify the mess
caused by the scope conundrum of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> You seem to ignore the facts, perhaps because they don't fit with
> your rant. And you seem to assume that we have a continual need for
> new laws, even if Congress feels that the old ones are working
> reasonably well.
Your “facts” concerning Congressional action -- 17 U.S.C. § 117 and 35
USC § 273 – are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Those actions do
nothing to clarify the problem posed by the idea-expression dichotomy
and the proper application of IP law to software.
I have my rants and you have yours:
“The fact is, whenever a company invents a new technology, it’s never
sure whether it’s going to get sued or not,” Hollaar continues. “Well,
that’s life. . .
http://www.theinstitute.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/tionline/tidec04.pdf
Well spoken Professor -- and very true. Small business and individuals
are left out of the American dream because they cannot afford the costs
and risks of litigation due to the lack of clarity in IP law. The
vagueness you so cavalierly advocate benefits trial lawyers and those
who can afford them.
> Whether anybody listens to you is another matter.
Ahhh. . . promulgated with the true arrogance of the tenured
intelligentsia. Great punch line :)
rjack
Lee Hollaar
>I have my rants and you have yours:
>
>"The fact is, whenever a company invents a new technology, it's never
>sure whether it's going to get sued or not," Hollaar continues. "Well,
>that's life. . .
>http://www.theinstitute.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/tionline/tidec04.pdf
Interesting quote, quite out of context.
For anybody actually reading the article (which starts on page 1, but
jumps to page 14, with the quote on page 15), you'll see that it is
about all the terrible things that will come from the passage of the
Induce Act (s. 2560 in the last Congress).
The bill never passed, but the Supreme Court adopted inducement as its
theory in the Grokster case. (Maybe because of an amicus brief that
I submitted.) And have all the dire predictions about the Induce Act
come true in the two years since the Grokster decision? Nope.
Which has little to do with whatever has a bee in your bonnet ...
Bruce Lewis
> This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
> requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
Yes, but if Congress declines this invitation, then one should assume
that the Supreme Court's opinion that software is not patentable is
good-enough law.
Yes, I know a later lower-court opinion (In re Alappat) muddied things,
but that's for the Supreme Court to clear up, not Congress.
--
http://ourdoings.com/
Amazingly simple photo sharing
Lee Hollaar
>rjack <rjack@com> writes:
>
>> This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
>> requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
>
>Yes, but if Congress declines this invitation, then one should assume
>that the Supreme Court's opinion that software is not patentable is
>good-enough law.
The Supreme Court *never* said that. Even in _Benson_, the Court said:
It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program
servicing a computer. We do not so hold.
409 U.S. at 71.
d...@soundmathtech.com
> decide the peoples' business?
>
> Those who don't communicate with their representatives and then vote
> have no right to subsequently bitch.
>
> rjack
The SCOTUS members are better off staying away from "software patent"
debate:
they made enough mess already as far as US patent system is concerned
(EBay, KSR etc.)
It's a useless debate anyway, cause there is no workable definition of
"software patent" - such a definition is simply impossible
Read this FAQ to clear your brains: http://www.ipjur.com/01.php3
rjack
> Read this FAQ to clear your brains: http://www.ipjur.com/01.php3
I read said FAQ but I'm afraid my already foggy neurons are now totally
opaque. Perhaps an infusion of ethyl alcohol will cause them to clarify
like a fine, clear Pinot Noir.
rjack
Bruce Lewis
> In article <nm9d4zr...@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu> Bruce Lewis <brl...@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> >Yes, but if Congress declines this invitation, then one should assume
> >that the Supreme Court's opinion that software is not patentable is
> >good-enough law.
>
> The Supreme Court *never* said that. Even in _Benson_, the Court said:
You say "Even in Benson." Are you implying that Benson was the most
definitive ruling against software patents, and that subsequent rulings
left more loopholes? I do not think that is the case. I think Benson,
Flook and Diehr all carry one consistent message.
> It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program
> servicing a computer. We do not so hold.
> 409 U.S. at 71.
They did not so hold because that was not the question before them. The
question was whether the particular BCD patent before them was a
"process" according to statute, and they held that it wasn't. Their
reasoning in answering this question has generally led people to believe
that any "generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical
problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another"
is not patentable, i.e. algorithms for general-purpose digital computers
are not patentable, but programs for special-purpose specific computers
might be. Every "software patent" example I've seen come up in online
discussions, including misc.int-property, has been of the former type.
In Parker v. Flook the court clarified that you couldn't patent an
algorithm by drafting a claim with non-novel elements that weren't
algorithms would not make it patentable.
In Diamond v. Diehr they explained the law the same way, but said the
patent was good because there were non-algorithm parts of the invention
that were novel, and interactions between the computer and the rest of
the system that were novel.
They didn't always say that you need to look at the non-software parts
of the invention and the ways software and non-software parts are
combined. More frequently they said you need to look at the invention
"as a whole". Of course, this latter wording is open to various
interpretations, including ones that turn Benson and Flook on their
ear. That's the way software patent advocates always read it. However,
there isn't any indication that the court intended to overturn its
precedents.
rjack
> That's the way software patent advocates always read it. However,
> there isn't any indication that the court intended to overturn its
> precedents.
It appears that the term “software patent” is a term that has entered
the World without benefit of the federal courts or Congress. A Google
search (admittedly not exhaustive) reveals no published court opinion
that incorporates the phrase “software patent”. Especially telling is a
search of published opinions of the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit’s
official opinions.
| "Supreme Court of the United States" "software patent" |
| "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" "software
patent" |
This is so because there is no such thing as a computer "software
patent". Software code in isolation is not patentable. It may only be
used as a step in conjunction with other process claims.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 makes
this point quite clear:
“Our conclusion regarding respondents' claims is not altered by the fact
that in several steps of the process a mathematical equation and a
programmed digital computer are used. . .
In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical
formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing
synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known
mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that
equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of
that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their
claimed process. . .
Arrhenius' equation is not patentable in isolation, but when a process
for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more efficient
solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred
at the threshold by 101. . .
In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for
patent protection under 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.
It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and
then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is
particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps
in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the
combination were well known and in common use before the combination was
made.”; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175(1981).
Again, computer code may not be patented in isolation but only claimed
when incorporated as a "step" in conjunction with other claims to form a
truly patentable process.
rjack
Lee Hollaar
>It appears that the term "software patent" is a term that has entered
>the World without benefit of the federal courts or Congress. A Google
>search (admittedly not exhaustive) reveals no published court opinion
>that incorporates the phrase "software patent". Especially telling is a
>search of published opinions of the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit's
>official opinions.
Perhaps literally true, but only because Google is the wrong place to
search.
"Must a software patent disclose every potential coding variation that
performs a claimed function?" University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle,
375 F.3d 1303, 71 USPQ2d 1545 (dissent by Judge Rader).
There are also some district court cases that use the term, and other
cases that use variants of it, such as "patented software."
But like many legal terms (such as "free speech"), the term is just
a shorthand for a large number of cases setting imprecise boundaries.
rjack
The Federal Circuit took it upon itself to decide new law when it declared:
"The first question, i.e., whether software may be a “component” of a
patented invention under § 271(f), was answered in the affirmative in
Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
which issued while the instant appeal was pending. In that case, we held
that “[w]ithout question, software code alone qualifies as an invention
eligible for patenting,” and that the “statutory language did not
limit section 271(f) to patented ‘machines’ or patented ‘physical
structures,’” such that software could very well be a “component” of a
patented invention for the purposes of § 271(f)."; AT&T v. Microsoft,
414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Supreme Court in review of that case held:
"Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as
such, it does not match §271(f)’s categorization: “components” amenable
to “combination.” Windows abstracted from a tangible copy no doubt is
information—a detailed set of instructions—and thus might be compared to
a blueprint (or anything else containing design information). A
blueprint may contain precise instructions for the construction and
combination of the components of a patented device, but it is not itself
a combinable component."; Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S.
___ (2007).
Someday, just maybe, Congress will settle the ontological question
concerning the existence of "software patents". Until then we can
continue to speculate in seventy-eleven different directions.
rjack
Alexander Terekhov
By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else containing
design information), §271(f) MUST cover exported copies (material
objects) of blueprints (or anything else containing design information)
since they held that "[i]n sum, a copy of Windows, not Windows in the
abstract, qualifies as a “component” under §271(f)."
regards,
alexander.
rjack
> By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
> which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else
> containing design information), §271(f) MUST cover exported copies
> (material objects) of blueprints (or anything else containing design
> information) since they held that "[i]n sum, a copy of Windows, not
> Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a “component” under §271(f)."
Welcome to the enlightened world of U.S. intellectual property law where
our elected representatives sit on their asses and do little but plan
for re-election or should that fail, a lucrative job as a lobbyist after
they leave office.
Meanwhile, software developers can cleanly revolve their
copyright-patent legal disputes by assuming that the object of their
inquiry is either a fucking bird, a plane, Superman or a "software
patent" -- maybe, sorta', kinda' -- depending upon which court you ask.
rjack
d...@soundmathtech.com
Oh, no, my friend...
This is certainly not a job for elected representatives, aside from
general policy issues...
Just look at what is happening now in US Congress with the so-called
patent "reform"...
When people don't understand what they are doing the consequences can
be horrible for the country... in the long term, of course.
Sen. Kennedy recently made a comment on the current situation:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/06/18/daily9.html
Lee Hollaar
>Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>> By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
>> which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else
>> containing design information), 271(f) MUST cover exported copies
>> (material objects) of blueprints (or anything else containing design
>> information) since they held that "[i]n sum, a copy of Windows, not
>> Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a "component" under 271(f)."
>
>Welcome to the enlightened world of U.S. intellectual property law where
>our elected representatives sit on their asses and do little but plan
>for re-election or should that fail, a lucrative job as a lobbyist after
>they leave office.
So, besides whine in a newsgroup (using a pseudonym), what have you done
to help the situation?
Have you made any concrete proposal, and brought it to the attention
of the chairs of the appropriate Congressional committees?
Have you filed amicus briefs so that courts are aware of the problem
and the solution?
Have you written opinion pieces in publications that are likely to
be read by people who can make the changes you suggest?
In fact, what is your suggestion, and why would it make things better?
Lee Hollaar
>
>rjack wrote:
>> The Federal Circuit took it upon itself to decide new law when it declared:
>>
>> "The first question, i.e., whether software may be a “component” of a
>> patented invention under § 271(f), was answered in the affirmative in
>> Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
>> which issued while the instant appeal was pending. In that case, we held
>> that “[w]ithout question, software code alone qualifies as an invention
>> eligible for patenting,” and that the “statutory language did not
>> limit section 271(f) to patented ‘machines’ or patented ‘physical
>> structures,’” such that software could very well be a “component” of a
>> patented invention for the purposes of § 271(f)."; AT&T v. Microsoft,
>> 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
>>
>> The Supreme Court in review of that case held:
>>
>> "Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as
>> such, it does not match §271(f)’s categorization: “components” amenable
>> to “combination.” Windows abstracted from a tangible copy no doubt is
>> information—a detailed set of instructions—and thus might be compared to
>> a blueprint (or anything else containing design information). A
>
>By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
>which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else containing
>design information), §271(f) MUST cover exported copies (material
>objects) of blueprints (or anything else containing design information)
>since they held that "[i]n sum, a copy of Windows, not Windows in the
>abstract, qualifies as a “component” under §271(f)."
With respect to the Supreme Court's opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T, the
amazing thing is that neither the parties, nor the Federal Circuit
in the opinion below, nor the Supreme Court addressed what seems to
be a fundimental question -- A component of what? In other words,
what was actually claimed to be the invention.
As I noted in "The Form of a Software Claim Makes a Big Difference,"
http://digital-law-online.info/papers/lah/PTCJclaims.pdf (BNA PTCJ.
Vol. 73, No. 1795, 11/17/2006), if we are considering a Beauregard-type
claim the software should be a component -- perhaps the most important
one.
The patent (5,838,906) considered by the Federal Circuit
in Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325,
73 USPQ2d 1782 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (69 PTCJ 471,
3/11/05), claims its invention as both a method and as a
computer program product. In particular, its media
claims are:
A computer program product . . ., the computer program
product comprising:
a computer usable medium having computer readable
program code physically embodied therein, said
computer program product further comprising: computer
readable program code for [performing the
steps of the method].
In other words, the claimed invention is some computer
usable medium and particular program code
stored on the medium. It should be clear that the digital
software code is a component of the claimed computer
program product.
The claim specifically recites computer readable
program code that is stored in the medium. In fact, it
is the code that is the only component of the claimed
computer program product that has any unique characteristic.
The combining of this code with some conventional
computer medium makes the claimed invention,
an act that would be infringement if done in the
United States.
I go on to note that the AT&T patent was granted pre-Beauregard and
therefore doesn't have article of manufacture claims, but it does have
appratus claims, and a similar analysis may apply.
It amazed me at oral arguments that AT&T did not address the claims
and there were no questions from the Court asked what the claimed
invention actually was.
rjack
> As I noted in "The Form of a Software Claim Makes a Big Difference,"
> http://digital-law-online.info/papers/lah/PTCJclaims.pdf (BNA PTCJ.
> Vol. 73, No. 1795, 11/17/2006), if we are considering a
> Beauregard-type claim the software should be a component -- perhaps
> the most important one.
I find one section of the paper that raises interesting issues:
"Claiming Software-Based Inventions.
When applying for a patent, it is common to claim software-based
inventions in a variety of ways: method or process, system or apparatus,
article of manufacture storing a program that implements the method, or
even signals used to transmit that program. . .
The ’156 patent, ‘‘Text Matching Algorithm,’ ’ not only includes program
code for implementing the claimed technique, but also shows how it can
be implemented using special hardware circuitry. However, the patent
does note ‘‘Although it is less likely that the algorithm of the present
invention will be implemented by means of special purpose circuitry,
such circuitry is illustrated in fig. 2 to indicate the general nature
of the algorithm involved.’’
http://digital-law-online.info/papers/lah/PTCJclaims.pdf
Although difficult to believe, during Kenneth Thompson's reign there
were not millions of microprocessors with ALU's available. Electrical
engineers through necessity became very ingenious at implementing
mathematical functions with analog transistor circuitry (op-amp adders,
subtractors, integrators, differentiators etc.).
Many "software-based inventions" are used in industrial control
processes today. With today's fantastic analog IC circuit density
available, an enormous number of very precise mathmatical functions can
be emulated without even mentioning a digital circuit. Virtually all
process control digital computers use A/D and D/A for I/O.
How about some nice "analog based inventions" that never even mention
"digital" or "software" that emulate exactly the processes of many
"software based inventions"?
rjack
Lee Hollaar
>Many "software-based inventions" are used in industrial control
>processes today. With today's fantastic analog IC circuit density
>available, an enormous number of very precise mathmatical functions can
>be emulated without even mentioning a digital circuit. Virtually all
>process control digital computers use A/D and D/A for I/O.
>
>How about some nice "analog based inventions" that never even mention
>"digital" or "software" that emulate exactly the processes of many
>"software based inventions"?
Not surprisingly, it would depend on how they were claimed if one
is looking at literal infringement, and whether they are equivalent
but not foreseeable at the time of the application when looking at
non-literal infringement.