No Source Code == No Patent

Re:No Source Code == No Patent by matsemann on Monday April 17, 2023 @05:35AM (#35598521)

> That's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea, not the implementation.

Is it, though? Like the lightbulb patent was for the specific way of making a lightbulb, not on "something that makes light from electricity".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Source Code == No Patent by MattPalmer1086 on Monday April 17, 2023 @05:54AM (#35598667)

Yes, that's true, I wasn't very clear. It's a method that is patented, but not a specific implementation of the method.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Source Code == No Patent by bdowling on Monday April 17, 2023 @07:07AM (#35599128)

There are often separate patents for things and methods of manufacture of those things.

In any case, a patent will be drafted to try to cover as many possible implementations of the thing or method.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Source Code == No Patent by stonemetal12 on Monday April 17, 2023 @01:03PM (#35603531)

>In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found that Congress intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man." ... However, the Court also stated that this broad definition has limits and does not embrace every discovery. According to the Court, the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.

>"something that makes light from electricity"

So yeah probably too abstract to be patentable. However something like "something that makes light from electricity by passing it through a filament" might be enough to make it not abstract.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent

[ Parent | on HN ]