U.S. Code, Title 35, §101. Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, […].
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.html
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
State Street, Juli 1998:
[…] the transformation of data […] by a machine […] constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or calculation, because it produces “a useful, concrete and tangible result” […].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Bilski, Oktober 2008:
The “useful, concrete and tangible result” test […]
should no longer be relied on.
Stattdessen:
Thus, the proper inquiry […] is not whether the process claim recites sufficient “physical steps,” but rather whether the claim meets the machine-or-transformation test. […]
A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.
… und das, obwohl die USA kein
Gegenstück zu Art. 52 EPÜ kennen!
http://endsoftpatents.org/
http://www.fsf.org/news/esp-bilski
http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/
referrals/pending/briefs.html
ACB des FFII, S. 31f
Revision durch das Supreme Court ist unwahrscheinlich.
Nach State Street: Massenhaft Patente auf Software und Geschäftsmethoden
Nach Bilski: ?
Was jetzt in der EU geschieht,
wird auch die USA beeinflussen.
Chance und Risiko