Software Patents: An Introduction

With the recent interests of Software Patents in Malaysia, I would like to post some useful links to where you can get updated on the issue.

The first is a nice introductory video on the differences between patents and copyright, and the dangers that software patents have.

• How Patents Actually Work

The second is a paper by fellow OpenMalaysia contributor Ditesh Kumar:

• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (ODF)
• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (PDF)

So go educate yourself on the issue and fight against software patents!

Comments

[CK]

I was reading Ditesh's paper and while his effort in writing is commendable, I wish that he would make citation to the points in particularly referencing the work.

Ditesh wrote at page 2 of his article. In this para

"However, 10 years later, the Supreme Court changed its opinion and granted a software patent in the Diamond v. Diehr. In this case, the invention for which the patent was awarded described a method to heat rubber such that the rubber is best "cured." The novel part of the invention was that a computer was used to calculate and control the timing for the heating of the rubber and as the patent not only included the use of the computer but also the steps of
heating the rubber, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for the patent stating that the invention
was a process for molding rubber and not just a mathematical algorithm."

it appears to be from http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

The complete decision of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) and can be found at

http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Diamond-v-Diehr-450-U-S-175-1981/2100-19980100,01.html

My intepretation is:

The Diehr Court determined that claims must be considered as a whole to determine patentability and that claims may not be considered unpatentable simply because they contain algorithms. "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. " (at 187) Importantly patentability must be viewed as whole as the court said "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." (at 188).

An extract http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1538/