First of all, what is a software patent? Software, per se, is not eligible for patent protection under US patent law. But claiming a method which uses a computer processor is legal. Whats the difference? transformation of a machine... software == bad, software executing a on a processor ==good.
When you see some article that says Country X is not allowing software patents...It is not allowing patents on purely software.
Case for "software" patents-
Why not? If 90 years ago, someone can invent a telecommunications system with hardware, then why can't I do it today with software? If I come up with an "idea" using Twillio's API and it is novel, uesful, and meets the 4 categories of patents - I am entitled to a patent.
However, it should be obvious to everyone that if i'm using Twillio's API, there should be prior art available to my idea. However, if there is not any prior art, then I am entitled to my patent. In other words, my "idea" should be easy to reject because there are obviously tons of prior art/teachings available.
However, if these are granted as patent...Then this is a quality issue argument and not whether software should be legal.
Also, if we can get rid of trolls out of the system, we'd me far better off.
First of all, what is a software patent? Software, per se, is not eligible for patent protection under US patent law. But claiming a method which uses a computer processor is legal. Whats the difference? transformation of a machine... software == bad, software executing a on a processor ==good.
When you see some article that says Country X is not allowing software patents...It is not allowing patents on purely software.
Case for "software" patents-
Why not? If 90 years ago, someone can invent a telecommunications system with hardware, then why can't I do it today with software? If I come up with an "idea" using Twillio's API and it is novel, uesful, and meets the 4 categories of patents - I am entitled to a patent.
However, it should be obvious to everyone that if i'm using Twillio's API, there should be prior art available to my idea. However, if there is not any prior art, then I am entitled to my patent. In other words, my "idea" should be easy to reject because there are obviously tons of prior art/teachings available.
However, if these are granted as patent...Then this is a quality issue argument and not whether software should be legal. Also, if we can get rid of trolls out of the system, we'd me far better off.