Software Patent Attorney listings @ Software patent attorney guide

Software Patent Attorney Guide

Software Patent Attorney









 




Software patents


Software Patent Attorneys

  1. Software Patent Attorneys Arizona
  2. Software Patent Attorneys Arkansas
  3. Software Patent Attorneys California
  4. Software Patent Attorneys Colorado
  5. Software Patent Attorneys Delaware
  6. Software Patent Attorneys Florida
  7. Software Patent Attorneys Georgia
  8. Software Patent Attorneys Iowa
  9. Software Patent Attorneys Kansas
  10. Software Patent Attorneys Kentucky
  11. Software Patent Attorneys Louisiana
  12. Software Patent Attorneys Maine
  13. Software Patent Attorneys Maryland
  14. Software Patent Attorneys Michigan
  15. Software Patent Attorneys Minnesota
  16. Software Patent Attorneys Missouri
  1. Software Patent Attorneys Nebraska
  2. Software Patent Attorneys Nevada
  3. Software Patent Attorneys New Jersey
  4. Software Patent Attorneys New Mexico
  5. Software Patent Attorneys North Carolina
  6. Software Patent Attorneys Ohio
  7. Software Patent Attorneys Oregon
  8. Software Patent Attorneys Pennsylvania
  9. Software Patent Attorneys Rhode Island
  10. Software Patent Attorneys South Carolina
  11. Software Patent Attorneys Vermont
  12. Software Patent Attorneys Virginia
  13. Software Patent Attorneys Washington
  14. Software Patent Attorneys Washington DC
  15. Software Patent Attorneys West Virginia
  16. Software Patent Attorneys Wisconsin

Software patents under United States patent law

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) did not grant a patent if the invention used a calculation made by a computer. The PTO's rationale was that patents could only be granted to processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter; patents could not be granted to scientific truths or mathematical expressions of it. Since the PTO viewed computer programs and inventions containing or relating to computer programs as mathematical algorithms, and not processes or machines, they were therefore not patentable. This view was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson (1968) and Parker v. Flook (1975).

In the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the PTO to grant a patent on an invention, even though a substantial part of the invention consisted of a computer program which used well-known formulae for calculating the time when rubber was cured and the mold could be opened. The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but a process for molding rubber, which was therefore patentable.Software patents under United States patent law

Software patent debate

Arguments commonly given in defense of software patents or in defense of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions include the following (counter-arguments are indicated by successive bullet points):

Patenting software inventions promotes investment in research and development.

The basic principles of patent law were developed before computers were invented, to promote the development of traditional useful arts, such as engineering and chemistry. Supporters of software patents argue that inventions in the software arts are the same, in principle, as inventions in these other areas. Patents, therefore, should have a similar impact in promoting investment in research and development. Software patent debate

Software patent

Software patent does not have a universally accepted definition.[1] One definition, proposed by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, is that a software patent is a "patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer program."Bessen & Hunt 2004 propose an alternative way of identifying software patents that is more easily used in practice.Software patent

US Patent Law Overwiew

In the U.S., a patent is a right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, exporting, exporting components to be assembled into an infringing device outside the U.S., importing the product of a patented process practiced outside the U.S., inducing others to infringe, offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent, and a few other very carefully defined categories. Thus, merely thinking about an invention, or drawing a diagram, is not an infringement. Research for "purely philosophical" inquiry is not an infringement, but research directed to commercial purposes is - unless the research is directed toward obtaining approval of the Food and Drug Administration for introduction of a generic version of a patented drug.

Unites States and Europe Software Patent Laws Compared

Software is a global business. Patents are increasingly the protection of choice; as a consequence, international software patent laws are of growing importance to software vendors. This article focuses on European patent law and how it differs from United States law in regards to software technology. Statutes and relevant case law of both unions are discussed and compared, providing an introductory secondary source for scholars and practitioners.Unites States and Europe Software Patent Laws Compared

United States Patent and Trademark Office

What Can Be Patented

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon 42 U.S.C. 2181 (a).

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required. United States Patent and Trademark Office

More from the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site :

eXTReMe Tracker
Software Patent Attorney listings @ Software patent attorney guide Software Patent Attorney © Site map l Privacy Policy