| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
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 formulas 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.
After this point, more patents on software began to be granted, albeit with conflicting and confusing results. The Federal Circuit attempted to clarify the rules; requiring that the computer program must have a practical application.
The Clinton administration appointed Bruce LehmanLehman (born September 19, 1945) served from August 5, 1993 through 1998 as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Nominated by President Clinton on April 23, 1993, and confirmed by Senate on August 5, 1993. In a s as Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office in 19941994 is a common year starting on Saturday, and was designated the International year of the Family''. Events January events January 1 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) goes into effect January 6 Nancy Kerrigan is clubbed on the right leg by an. Unlike his predecessors, Lehman was not a patent lawyer but the chief lobbyist for the Software Publishing Industry. In 19951995 was a common year starting on Sunday (see link for calendar). It has a Golden number of 1, and was the first year of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995- 2005): http://www. org/culture/indigenous . Events January events Ja, the PTO established some broad guidelines for examining and issuing software patents. The PTO interpreted the courtThis article is about courts of law . For alternative meanings see: Court (disambiguation). A court is an official, public forum which a public power establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative ands as requiring the PTO to grant software patents in a broad variety of circumstances. Note, that although the US Congress has never legislated specifically that software is patentable, the broad description of patentable subject in the Patent Act of 1952 and the failure of Congress to change the law after the court decisions allowing software patents, has been interpreted as an indication of Congressional intent.
Another impetus for software patenting was the growing recognition that using the copyright law to protect non-literal infringement of computer programs (rather than just piracy) was getting out-of-control. When comparing patent protection to the use of non-literal copyright infringement, many commentators argued that many protections for competitors are built into the patent system that are lacking in the copyright laws. Specifically, these commentators pointed out copyrights are not examined, but patents must first be examined to determine if the program is both novel and non-obvious; the scope of patent rights is defined by the patent claims, while the scope of non-literal copyright infringement is unclear; and the patent term of 17 or 20 years is much shorter than the copyright terms. When courts began to permit software invention to be patentable, other courts also began restricting the use of copyright law to obtain patent-like protection of software.
Those who favor software patents believe that software can be considered a branch of science or engineering, and that therefore inventions can exist to the same extent as in other engineering of science disciplines and that the lawThis article is about law in society. For other possible meanings, see law (disambiguation). Law (a loanword from Danish-Norwegian lov , in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules of conduct which mandate or proscribe (or both) specified relationshi should not and, in practice is not able to, distinguish software inventions from hardware or other inventions. Proponents also argue that the patent system should therefore reward inventors of innovative approaches in software, and thus promote innovation. This belief is important in the US, because this is the only permitted reason for a patent to be granted according to the US Constitution. More specifically, the Constitution only permits Congress "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Opponents charge that software patents are particularly favored by lawyers, who financially benefit from patent litigation, and by some (though not all) very large software companies, who hope to use patents to prevent competitors from using the patented technology. Proponents respond that very large software companies, such as Microsoft, have not so far aggressivly sought to enforce software patents, and in fact the most agressive users of software patents have been small and medium sized companies, or major companies in decline.