Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program code

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by GuiA on Sunday July 01, 2012 @11:30PM (#4187173)

>Your average HN reader would probably 'invent' the same technique if CPU design was their profession and they were tasked with the continuous march of CPU performance.

In French law, you can only patent something if it is not something that would be evident to a trained professional in the field ("Pour un homme du métier, une invention ne doit pas découler de façon évidente de l’état de la technique ; on considère que l’homme du métier est le technicienmoyen dans un secteur donné"- art. L611-10, Code Propriété Intellectuelle.)

Is it not the case in the US?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by djahng on Sunday July 01, 2012 @11:37PM (#4187191)

It is, the problem is "trained professionals in the field" don't review patent applications. Having a patent attorney file the application all but ensures that just about anything is patentable (provided you're willing to pay the legal fees).

Check this out: http://www.google.com/patents?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by Zenst on Sunday July 01, 2012 @11:49PM (#4187222)

That example of the cat light thing is a probably the best example of how patents need sorting I have ever seen.

Thank you djahng.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by ken on Sunday July 01, 2012 @11:48PM (#4187219)

Trained professionals in the field don't tend to work in the patent office (it probably pays less well, especially in software), so the patent office errs on the side of granting too generously, and lets the courts decide later whether to actually let them stand.

How does France deal with this situation?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by darkestkhan on Monday July 02, 2012 @04:28AM (#4187923)

I love how Polish law deals with this situation - software is algorithms and algorithms are math and math isn't patentable :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by masklinn on Monday July 02, 2012 @02:17AM (#4187600)

> How does France deal with this situation?

Pretty much the same way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by gcb on Monday July 02, 2012 @01:10AM (#4187428)

They should have taken the time to visit the office in alpha centaury. After all they make a living of it, they should be able to spare the little time to the trip.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by OmegaHN on Monday July 02, 2012 @12:05AM (#4187259)

Yes, it is the case. In 35 U.S.C. 103:

>(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by Vivtek on Monday July 02, 2012 @03:23AM (#4187747)

"Negatived"? Is "negative" a verb in legal language?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by twentysix on Monday July 02, 2012 @02:11AM (#4187589)

"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35...

In the US it should be obvious to a person of ordinary skill, not just an expert. I don't think its easy to objectively define a person of ordinary skill either.

[ Parent | on HN ]