Diálogos com Antonio Abrantes:

(AA) A palavra técnica provém do grego "techne" que significa as artes
úteis, que por sua vez provém de "tekton" ou carpinteiro, de forma
que em sua origem a palavra envolvia algo do mundo físico em oposição
ao mundo das idéias abstratas. Uma definição muito utilizada da
natureza técnica de uma invenção é encontrada na decisão Gert Kolle
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/grur-kolle77de.htmlRead e
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html da corte alemã de
1976 "Dispositionsprogramm" como "the teaching how to use
controllable natural forces to achieve a causally predictable result
without the intervention of the human mind".


> A definição de processo (nos velhos tempos em que os Estados Unidos
não davam patente para software) nos Estados Unidos é apresentada nos
caso Cochrane. Em AT&T v. Excel 172 F 3d 1352 de 1999 a corte
esclarece que "the notion of physical transformation can be
misundestood. In the first place, it is not an invariable
requirement, but merely one example of how a mathematical algorithm
may bring about a useful application", ou seja a noção de
transformação física é formalmente abandonada. O USPTO tem concedido
milhares de patentes de software (entre no Adobe Photoshop e veja
dezenas delas listadas na tela de abertura). O guideline americano,
que data de 1996 mereceria uma revisão para atualizar o caso ATT
Excel de 1999.

> http://digital-law-online.info/cases/209PQ1.htm
> Although the term "process" was not added to 35 U.S.C. §101 until
1952, a process has historically enjoyed patent protection because it
was considered a form of "art" as that term was used in the 1793
Act.7 In defining the nature of a patentable process, the Court
stated:
> That a process may be patentable, irrespective of the <450 U.S.
183> particular form of the instrumentalities used, cannot be
disputed. * * * A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials
to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts,
performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a
different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable
as is a piece of machinery. In the language of the patent law, it is
an art. The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process
may or may not be new or patentable; whilst the process itself may be
altogether new, and produce an entirely new result. The process
requires <450 U.S. 184> that certain things should be done with
certain substances, and in a certain order; but the tools to be used
in doing this may be of secondary consequence." Cochrane v. Deener,
94 U.S. 780, 787-788 (1876) . <209 USPQ 7>


> Analysis of the eligibility of a claim of patent protection for
a "process" did not change with the addition of that term to §101.
Recently, in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 663, 175 USPQ 673 (1972),
we repeated the above definition recited in Cochrane v.
Deener,adding "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,
175 USPQ at 676 .
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/analysis/comput
er.html

> A claim that requires one or more acts to be performed defines a
process. However, not all processes are statutory under § 101. To
be statutory, a claimed computer-related process must either: (1)
result in a physical transformation outside the computer for which a
practical application in the technological arts is either disclosed
in the specification or would have been known to a skilled artisan
(discussed in (i) below),[i] or (2) be limited by the language in the
claim to a practical application within the technological arts
(discussed in (ii) below).[ii] The claimed practical application
must be a further limitation upon the claimed subject matter if the
process is confined to the internal operations of the computer. If a
physical transformation occurs outside the computer, it is not
necessary to claim the practical application. A disclosure that
permits a skilled artisan to practice the claimed invention, i.e., to
put it to a practical use, is sufficient. On the other hand, it is
necessary to claim the practical application if there is no physical
transformation or if the process merely manipulates concepts or
converts one set of numbers into another. A claimed process is
clearly statutory if it results in a physical transformation outside
the computer, i.e., falls into one or both of the following specific
categories ("safe harbors").

------------

> [i] See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 183-84, 209 USPQ at 6
(quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-88 (1877) ("A
[statutory] process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to
produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed
upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different
state or thing. . . . The process requires that certain things
should be done with certain substances, and in a certain order; but
the tools to be used in doing this may be of secondary consequence.").
> [ii] See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556-57
(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10). See
also id. at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J., concurring)
("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat patentability of
its practical applications") (citing O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15
How.) at 114-19).

(DBB) Minha esperança, Antonio, é que, com o Globo noticiando a descoberta
do sexto estado da natureza, a gente acabe por concluir que - mais
soft do que o plasma, mais ware do que o gelo, os seus programas de
encontros românticos acabem por serem adotados pelos anjos como um
estado de alma "to be transformed and reduced to a different state or
thing"....