<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>MassHighTech: Software and business method patents, post-Bilski</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112662/masshightech:software-and-business-method-patents-post-bilsk</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;MassHighTech: Software and business method patents, post-Bilski&quot; - Can I patent software running on a general purpose computer? The Bilski court focused on data-processing methods, and did not address the patentability of hardware or software per se. A key question for the future is how the phrase “tied to a particular machine” will be applied to software patents. If interpreted narrowly — i.e., requiring the use of special-purpose computing hardware to receive a patent — many, if not most, business method and software patents may not survive. If it is read less restrictively, the status quo may prevail. In either case, patents for inventions implemented as software should include some structural and functional components in the patent application and the claims. Claims covering human activity are now seemingly a thing of the past.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:53:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112662#post-333150</guid>
				<title>MassHighTech: Software and business method patents, post-Bilski</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112662/masshightech:software-and-business-method-patents-post-bilsk#post-333150</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"Can I patent software running on a general purpose computer? The Bilski court focused on data-processing methods, and did not address the patentability of hardware or software per se. A key question for the future is how the phrase “tied to a particular machine” will be applied to software patents. If interpreted narrowly — i.e., requiring the use of special-purpose computing hardware to receive a patent — many, if not most, business method and software patents may not survive. If it is read less restrictively, the status quo may prevail. In either case, patents for inventions implemented as software should include some structural and functional components in the patent application and the claims. Claims covering human activity are now seemingly a thing of the past."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/12/08/focus3-Software-and-business-method-patents-post-Bilski.html">http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/12/08/focus3-Software-and-business-method-patents-post-Bilski.html</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>
