[A2k] PATNEWS: Apple's new crappy patent on disabling cellphones

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 16:58:01 PDT 2012

You've heard me before on this, but for the general audience:

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Erik Josefsson
<erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me finish with the "software/hardware"-enigma that it would be illogical
> not to allow patent protection for a software implementation if the same
> innovation implemented in hardware is patentable. It is simply the other way
> around. If the intellectual achievement can be expressed in source code and
> performed on a general purpose computer it is not an invention - and here is
> why: the Leon processor source code is released under LGPL/GPL licence and
> "A LEON processor can be implemented in programmable logic
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_logic_device> such as an FPGA
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array> or manufactured
> into an ASIC
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit>."
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEON)

I do this like this:

1) Is there a general purpose logic processor in the claimed invention?
2) Are there separate instructions in any form being provided to that
processor for execution?

If both are there, then those instructions are not covered by the
patent.  The two conditions both define software and define the
software as pure logic.

I like to start there and grant the possibility that the doodad as a
whole might be a valid invention.  But unlike the EPO I make it
specific that you can't extend any patent's scope to the software it
might contain.


More information about the A2k mailing list