You know, I'm really not particularly proud of this...

[mdlbear]

United States Patent: 7356611

Techniques for designing and processing a workflow that can be refined or modified based upon information associated with a document processed by the workflow. Since the author of the document may configure the information associated with a document that is used to determine if a workflow is to be modified, the present invention enables a document author, in addition to the workflow designer, to control processing of a document in a workflow. The documents themselves specify portions of the overall processing within a workflow net. Permissions information may be specified for the workflow and for the documents. The permissions information may specify which documents can modify the workflow, the manner in which the workflow is modified, and which documents can be processed according to the modified workflow.

I really believe that the whole idea of software patents is evil. So this kind of thing puts me roughly in the same kind of position as a vegetarian who's just invented a more efficient way of raising pigs.

*sigh*

Comments

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Well, I will congratulate you anyway. I don't think software patents per se are evil, but there are serious problems with the system.

[mdlbear]

Thanks.

1. up until very recently, software *wasn't* patentable.
2. ... the criteria for making it seem patentable were cooked up by people who didn't know what they were doing.
3. The courts have already ruled that software is a form of literature (i.e., software is speech, for first amendment purposes) -- one can't patent speech, or ideas.

Similar arguments apply to business method patents.