|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
The point from our vantage is that THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between a
cannon WITH the invention and a cannon WITHOUT the invention.
So where is the invention!? If it's not physical, it can't be patented because
it doesn't exist!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
Getting off the subject here. But surely this is far too broad. It is a patent
on an outcome, not on a method for achieving it.
Algorithms are unpatentable mathematics (the constitution DOES explicitly say
that, much as you seem to wish that it did not). You shouldn't be allowed to
patent ALL ways of implementing a mathematical algorithm. To do so is
functionally equivalent to patenting the algorithm itself.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|