On Saturday 08 November 2008 17:42, Saswata Banerjee wrote:
information from previous visits). The court decided that this method of doing business was not patentable. It had nothing to do with the software.
True, as far as THIS case goes. But in handing down the judgement the court has questioned the premises on which invention is judged. Business methods claimed inventiveness without a tangible device. Software tries to tie a general purpose device having no invention, with software to claim a unique invention. A highily questionable practice because software is not patentable.
It would probably be like Barista saying they are now offering 2 cokies free with every caffe late and want to patent that offer so no one else can copy it. The court ruling says that this is a business process, even if no one else has done it before, it is not patentable.
Even if Barista tied the BP to a machine on wheels that located you in the shop and dispensed the extra cookies. It might be able to patent that machine. But not the process of dispensing free cookies nor can it stop someone from dispensing 1 or 1.5 or 2 cookies by hand, another machine on an air cushion / halftracks, whatever
Not directly linked to software as such. However, many software patents have been filed in the past centered around the uniqueness of a business process. So that would probably be invalid if this doctrin is followed.