|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

The exfiltrated exFAT driver

The exfiltrated exFAT driver

Posted Aug 1, 2013 14:49 UTC (Thu) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613)
In reply to: The exfiltrated exFAT driver by Seegras
Parent article: The exfiltrated exFAT driver

While no jurisdiction but US allows patents on software (or mathematics) per see, in most jurisdictions the process of a special-purpose machine can be patented, even if (part) of that process is implemented in software, just as the process of a special-purpose machine can be patented even if (part) of the process is implemented using bolts-and-nuts (which isn't patentable either).

The problem is that some patent lawyers argue that whenever you put a piece of software into a general-purpose computer, you are effectively manufacturing a special-purpose machine, which can infringe on the patent. This interpretation is generally favoured by the European Patent Office, which are therefore happy to grant a patent on using a general-purpose computer to do "one click shopping". However, as of this moment, no court outside of Germany will buy that argument, making those patents unenforceable.

Unfortunately European courts can not actually strike down an already granted patent (only a patent re-examination by the European Patent Office can do that), but have to look at each case individually to determine whether the subject of the lawsuit is violating the patent in question. The answer to that question is generally going to be "No", but each and every user will still need their own lawyer and court date to get to that point...


to post comments

The exfiltrated exFAT driver

Posted Aug 2, 2013 2:49 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

> While no jurisdiction but US allows patents on software (or mathematics) per see

The US explicitly forbids patents on mathematics.

Check Groklaw.net, what we want and what USPTO/Courts does are not the same

Posted Aug 3, 2013 11:41 UTC (Sat) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link] (1 responses)

While it's certainly true many of us here believe (and can mathematically prove) software is math, and thus not eligible for patents, USPTO routinely grants patents on software, and they are upheld in courts. Until the Supreme Court of the US issues a definitive ruling that software is math, this battle will continue. That also means large companies suing over software patents (MS vs Motorola, Apple vs Samsung, etc). You need to be prepared to defend if you write software, unfortunately. Thankfully there are some large organizations that are beginning to see the light, and some large non-profits that are on the side of programming=math.

Check Groklaw.net, what we want and what USPTO/Courts does are not the same

Posted Aug 4, 2013 7:48 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Oh, I agree. The missing part here is to convince courts that software is math. I was just pointing out that the "mathematics" part is definitely wrong barring new legislation.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds