Difference between revisions of "Gottschalk v. Benson"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
(improved) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
''Id.'' at 70. | ''Id.'' at 70. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The ''Benson'' decision defined an "algorithm" as a "procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." 409 U.S. at 65. It then held: | ||
| + | |||
| + | :"It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula [i.e., algorithm] for converting BCD [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case." (emphasis added)). | ||
| + | |||
| + | 409 U.S. at 71-72. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that patents are statutorily granted only to new processes, with the term "process" defined as "process, art or method, [including] a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material." 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) (1982). | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category:patent law]] | ||
Revision as of 23:37, July 17, 2009
In Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court excluded patents and software from patentability:
- "Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."
Id. at 70.
The Benson decision defined an "algorithm" as a "procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." 409 U.S. at 65. It then held:
- "It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula [i.e., algorithm] for converting BCD [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case." (emphasis added)).
409 U.S. at 71-72.
Note that patents are statutorily granted only to new processes, with the term "process" defined as "process, art or method, [including] a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material." 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) (1982).