|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
I wonder if Judge Alsup will realise why he is able to follow all of this
software discussion in the case. Obviously, he will follow the max() algorithm
to determine the greater of two numbers and the rangeCheck that applies it to a
math array in a matrix.
However, it may also occur to him that the 'optimisation' patent is the
substitution of one algorithm that computes a function for another that is
mathematically more efficient. The same applies to the array initialisation to
the starting values in a computation.
It should be obvious stuff for any trained mathematician such as himself. I
wonder if he is wondering what difference it makes, mathematically, when in the
overall computation the algorithm substitution takes place. Surely he must
question whether it is a genuine math discovery to do it at the beginning of
run-time for the dependant computation that is the app.
He might even wonder what the relevance of the math is to a telephone. Surely,
it is all made-up, abstract stuff, isn't it? The dependant computation (the
app) is arbitrary. This stuff is independent of which app is actually run, isn't
it?
If the penny drops, it might just break his foot with the force of it.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
