No Source Code == No Patent
6 hours ago
- #intellectual-property
- #software-development
- #patent-law
- The article discusses the U.S. patent statute, focusing on Section 112 (Specification), which requires a detailed description of the invention.
- It highlights the difference between Actual Reduction to Practice (ARP) and Constructive Reduction to Practice (CRP), emphasizing that CRP often lacks sufficient detail in software patents.
- The author argues that source code should be required in software patents to prove the invention's validity, contrasting current legal opinions that flowcharts or textual descriptions are sufficient.
- Legal cases like Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar and Northern Telecom are cited to show judicial precedents that allow diagrams or high-level descriptions to suffice for patents.
- The article criticizes the legal system's outdated view of programming as a 'mere clerical function,' which doesn't reflect modern software development complexity.
- It proposes amending Section 112 to mandate public source code disclosure, which would reduce frivolous patent filings and ensure inventors truly possess their claimed inventions.
- The author concludes that software patents hinder innovation and free speech, advocating for clearer, code-backed patent descriptions to protect developers from unintentional infringement.