Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Patents Compared to Hard Patents

Posted by Zonk on from the different-flavours-of-patent dept.

Arie writes "The Slate discusses the obvious differences between patenting an algorithm and a drug. The article introduces the Fence test, which basically says that if you can physically protect your property, you have a case patenting it. In addition, it claims that the burden on a programmer identifying whether he is infringing on a patent or not involves excessive research burden, essentially to the inherent lack of physical boundaries. Obviously the article starts off with mentioning the patent dispute between RIM and NTL."

1 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Patentability 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a quote from wikipedia on 'patentability':

    Patent laws usually require that, in order for an invention to be patentable,

    * it must be of patentable subject matter, ie a kind of subject-matter that is eligible for patent protection,
    * be novel,
    * be non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law);
    * be useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law).
    [* see below for formal conditions such as 'sufficiency of disclosure')]

    Usually the term "patentability" only refers to "substantive" conditions, and does not refer to formal conditions such as the "sufficiency of disclosure", the "unity of invention" or the "best mode requirement".

    Under United States patent law, inventorship is also regarded as a patentability criterion.

    --source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability