|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
Actually, I suppose you missed almost all software patents. Dear old Benson was
a real math algorithm. I suppose one (perhaps, even, this one) could write an
alternative algorithm.
Oracle patent '104 was on the use of a math lookup table in particular groups of
functionally interlinked programs. It is (was?) a patent on the use of a math
concept rather than the algorithm implementing the lookup function.
Oracle patent '520 is on the concept of math substitution of functions.
Neither of the patents are to do with computers. The patents are a successful
attempt to narrow the use of math concepts to software in a computer, further
narrowed and narrowed and narrowed to a narrow field of software.
If you think about it, they were narrowed to software using the math theory
(which, I suppose, you might just have brought to our attention) that permits a
set of algorithms expressed in one math language to be translated to any other
math language. I think that came from 'An Explanation of Computation Theory for
Lawyers'.
I think the geeks call it compilation or interpretation or some such. Serves
them right! Give math fancy names and you're sure to find someone who want to
charge you for using it.
Whoever decided that computer science was applied math should be kicked in
the... should be kicked. The complete Java environment is an abstract idea. It
is intended as a universal platform to execute any arbitrary program written in
the Java language.
Only when a Java program is executed on the Java platform and does something for
the runner of the program related to the real world can it be called applied
math. Compiling source code or providing a software based approximation to the
hypothetical universal Turing machine has got to be pure math.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
