On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Valent Turkovic <valent.turkovic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : > > Here are the highlights: > > * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible > result" inquiry as being inadequate. > > * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather > requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. > > * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* > > * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we > will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain > functionality. > > * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding > of the law are almost certainly now worthless. Wait a few months. It's likely that some involved haven't received their cheques yet. -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
