Software is once again unpatentable in the United States

[Les Mikesell]

Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 :
> 
> Here are the highlights:
> 
>   * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible
> 	result" inquiry as being inadequate.
> 
>   * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather
> 	requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state.
> 
>   * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States*
> 
>   * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we
> 	will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain
> 	functionality.
> 
>   * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding
> 	of the law are almost certainly now worthless.

This is a step in the right direction in terms of seeing most software 
as math operations instead of a model of hardware.  But the Supreme 
Court is probably going to have to rule on it before the matter is 
settled - if the legislation isn't changed first to be more explicit.

But the concept that I'd really like to see put forth is that if, as a 
consumer, you have one set of bits incorporating a patented algorithm 
you then have the right to use any other arrangement of bits to 
accomplish that same algorithm's effect, just as in the hardware case 
that this is supposed to model, you would be permitted to rearrange and 
alter the parts of your licensed device without having to purchase a new 
license to cover the same patent.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com