Talk:Diamond v. Diehr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Did this case rule that the machine was patentable or the program patentable? It seems ambiguous. This link is Broken 15:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's answered in the VERY first two sentences. I'm really not sure what else you want it to say:

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)[1], was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that a machine controlled by a computer program was patentable. This decision did not make a computer program, by itself, patentable.

I'm really not sure how much clearer the point can be made. Mmmbeer 17:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

it says "did not make a computer program, by itself, patentable" but was the program patented when you patented it with the machine. i.e. Could I have the same machine as someone else but with a different program (so the program isn't by itself) patented. Or does the machine also need to be novel. This link is Broken 21:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The patent was for a machine controlled by a computer program. The question answered by the court is not whether the machine by itself or the program by itself was patentable, but rather, whether the combination was patentable. So the rule from the case is exactly as it is in the intro, and as I pasted. Law is very particular about language. Mmmbeer 19:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The case is significant because, before this ruling, the mere presence of a computer in an otherwise patentable invention could make the invention unpatentable. Even though this decision didn't specifically allow for software patents, it established the general concept that processes involving computers can be patented as long as they produce a useful result (and meet the other criteria for patentable subject matter). It was subsequently argued that, since "non-mathematical algorithms" are step-by-step processes, they should be subject to patent protection if they produce a useful result. Bryan 15:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)