Email and Word Processing patentable?!

Posted Apr 17, 2014 2:51 UTC (Thu) by brunowolff (guest, #71160)
Parent article: US Supreme Court looks at patents again

I have seen email reinvented multiple times on computer systems over the years. This is a really obvious application. People want to send asynchronous messages to each other.

Generic word processing is also an obvious application for a computer.

It's not a good sign that one of the justices thinks that generic versions of those ideas are patentable.

Email and Word Processing patentable?!

Posted Apr 17, 2014 17:15 UTC (Thu) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]

"Sending asynchronous messages to other people" by itself isn't any more of an invention than saying "people want a means of nighttime illumination that doesn't fill the room with smoke," or for that matter "a portable telecommunications device operated by means of a touchscreen." It's the implementation that counts as an invention that could be patentable (or do you think making WYSIWYG work on 1992 DOS computers wasn't non-obvious?). Plus, it wasn't a justice who made the comment about email and word processing, it was Perry, one of the lawyers.

IANAL.

Email and Word Processing patentable?!

Email and Word Processing patentable?!

Email and Word Processing patentable?!

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier! Saves Data!