View Single Post
Old 07-11-2010, 10:14 AM   #8
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 8,059
Karma: 61732902
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: PRS-T1, KT, PB701/IQ, K2, PB360, BeBook One, Axim51v, TC1000
Like it or not, algorithms are patentable when expressed in associated hardware. This fits the guidelines as its expression *requires* a touchscreen. The hardware doesn't *have* to be new or unique, just the algorithm.

Here's the latest on the issue:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application...t-Case-814678/

Note:
Quote:
the court also rejected the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a concept called the machine-or-transformation test was the only test that could be allowed for considering whether a a patent should be granted. That test considers whether the patent involves a machine or in some way transforms some object from one state to another.
The courts just said that hardware expression is *not* the *only* test of patentability but clearly, anything that is so expressed *is* patentable.

Last edited by fjtorres; 07-11-2010 at 10:21 AM.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote