My initial comment was relating to computing implementations, not obvious, tangible, “see and feel” items like improvements to a wheel. We now have process and method patents, like it or not. What is needed are clear, defensible lines of delineation for the electronic and process realms for what can be patented. Saying that it is OK to patent the “implementation” of a concept does not provide a clear line.
“We now have process and method patents, like it or not.”
There should not be general “process” patents, because a generalized process is synonymous with “concept” and even “the automobile” IS a concept.
A “method” patent should only be given when it too is not merely the concept behind a method, but the very specific means by which the concept was implemented as a very specific method - the computer code, specific hardware, specific integration of the two in a specific manner that implements the “method”.
Someone else could imagine the same concept behind the method and use a different toolset - computer code, specific hardware, specific integration of the two - and not infringe on the other’s patent. Stealing or totally repeating the other’s computer code & integrating it in the same fashion with the same hardware would be a patent violation.
“Process” needs to have the same logic applied to it.
The idea/concept is not the invention. The manner of the implemnetation of the idea/concept is the invention.
“The airplane” was not, as a concept, the invention. HOW one did it involved and produce a number of patents, but others could still imagine the concept/process/method of flying and implement it using their how invented too set.
The software industry has long gotten away with patenting mere “ideas”, not inventions, to keep others from competing altogether. They have gotten away with formulating legal arguments that computer “process” and “method” are not only “new” but have no analgous comparisons to older industrial technologies. They are wrong.