EB: GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==The Situation== *Benson develops a "method for converting numerical information from binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers." *Gottschalk is the commissioner of ...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
**The claims of Benson's patent were sweeping - claiming all rights to the process developed (whether by a computer or by hand) | **The claims of Benson's patent were sweeping - claiming all rights to the process developed (whether by a computer or by hand) | ||
*A process is patentable if it transforms or reduces the subject matter to a "different state or thing" | *A process is patentable if it transforms or reduces the subject matter to a "different state or thing" | ||
**Benson's patent would " | **Benson's patent would "wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." | ||
***In other words, Benson's patent is for a mathematical formula/algorithm, and these are ruled to be ideas, which alone are not patentable | ***In other words, Benson's patent is for a mathematical formula/algorithm, and these are ruled to be ideas, which alone are not patentable | ||
*Important outcome: You can't patent a computer program | *Important outcome: You can't patent a computer program | ||
Revision as of 16:18, 6 February 2011
The Situation
- Benson develops a "method for converting numerical information from binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers."
- Gottschalk is the commissioner of patents who originally rejected the patent, Benson appealed and won - Supreme Court grants centiorari
Decision
- Benson's patent is invalid (sustaining the examiners original decision, but reversing the Appeals court decision)
Reasoning
- You can't patent an idea - if you discover a "phenomenon of nature" you can't claim a monopoly on it unless you apply the law of nature to a "new and useful end"
- The claims of Benson's patent were sweeping - claiming all rights to the process developed (whether by a computer or by hand)
- A process is patentable if it transforms or reduces the subject matter to a "different state or thing"
- Benson's patent would "wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself."
- In other words, Benson's patent is for a mathematical formula/algorithm, and these are ruled to be ideas, which alone are not patentable
- Benson's patent would "wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself."
- Important outcome: You can't patent a computer program
