|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
The word 'math' woke me up like an alarm clock.
I turned over and went back to sleep.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
While I whole heartedly agree with the expert there. I'm thinking no one will
really pay attention to what he said "You have to do a lot of math."
because the lawyers didn't actually ask the fundamental question.
The real question and the only possible correct answer the lawyers (for Google)
should be asking is "Are computer instructions basically just the
manipulation of numbers?" Answer: Yes. (or someone that says no and tries
to weasel)
Question: What is a 'bit'?
Answer: The fundamental instruction of a computer system, a numerical '1' for
'on' and a numerical '0' for off.
Question: Computer instructions are composed of only bits?
Answer: Yes. (easy to prove if they say otherwise, just show the jury how
registers operate)
Question: Computer data is composed only of bits?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So computer instructions are manipulations of bits?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So computer instructions are only series of manipulations of 1s and
0s?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So computer instructions are fundamentally mathematics?
Answer: Yes.
So the 'reasonable' jury would have no choice but to find that the patents are
invalid. It would essentially be patenting the Pythagorean Theorem or 1+1=2.
So... why don't lawyers actually get to the basics of the issue instead of
beating around the bush with something by standing law isn't patentable to begin
with?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
