3 ms·

I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much. So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sor

• pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...). I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years. There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
• rhino369 9y ago
  >So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding? That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
  • chris_wot 9y ago
    That's the Alice case, which is described here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...