3 ms·
Not in the US, although implementation patents are easier to defend you can write very broad patents. You can have a business method patent, eg look at the pri
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
Not in the US, although implementation patents are easier to defend you can write very broad patents.
You can have a business method patent, eg look at the prices charged by various retailers and buy the lowest one, or even a patent on the plot of a novel. Both of these have been patented in the US.
Your 'invention' no longer has to be workable for it to be patented nor do you have to demonstrate a working implementation.
That's the issue with a lot of software patents on things like H264 - the patent can simply be on the concept of compressing video, you don't have to invent a particular encoding scheme.
- nkassis 16y agoBut the law was not intended to work that way. This is why bilski has gone so far. They were trying to do exactly what you describe and they probably won't get the patent in the end. The supreme court will probably find some way to not revolutionize patents by making the decision so specific that only this case will be affected.
- iuygtfnh 16y agoThe supreme court decided to let people fight it out in court. What this means is that patents only work for cartels of large companies forming a patent pool to keep a technology (eg. H264) to themselves and patent trolls who have no other business so can't be violating any other patents. For anyone else - even if you have a patent on a real invention, and can afford to defend it in court, you are likely to be violating dozens of the large company's patents (how could you know) and so are going to lose.