3 ms·
India is saying there is no patent because software isn't tangible like hardware or anything physical would be. If the patent involved hardware and the program
by orionblastar 11y ago
India is saying there is no patent because software isn't tangible like hardware or anything physical would be. If the patent involved hardware and the program or software it is covered because hardware is tangible.
For example the Apple iPhone uses custom chips for things like encryption and security. So in India they would accept the patents.
India doesn't see business methods, software, and mathematical method as valid for patents because they are not tangible in real life but more like information.
If they are part of hardware or some physical device that is tangible they can issue a patent.
This is quite different from the US Patent office, and most likely India did it to give small companies access to the same information that big companies use by refusing to patent their software unless it is associated with hardware. If it is all software, anyone can use it.
This is a big attack on companies like Microsoft that use software patents to sue other companies. Suddenly in India, they can no longer do that unless it is tied to hardware in some way.
- chetanahuja 11y ago"This is quite different from the US Patent office," Today it's different from US patent office. For most of the US Patent office's history, it was the same. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co._v._Signature_Financial_Group,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co....
- orionblastar 11y agoLink must have moved here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co._v._Signature_Financial_Group,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co.... But yeah I see now that US patent office used to be like India, but now it accepts any patent.
- emj 11y agoMETA: Seems like the . is stripped from the end of links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co._v._Signature_Financial_Group,_Inc.
- jcranmer 11y agoThe State St. is no longer valid precedent. SCOTUS went well out of its way to emphasize that the State St. decision was completely insane and wrong in Bilski v Kappos even as it struggled to come to grips with a coherent definition. Nevertheless, it's been pretty clear that SCOTUS would rule just about any software patent invalid.