|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
"ALL software is a specification of hardware"
Is not
true at all. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
On the other
hand,
"ALL software is a mathematical algorithm"
is
self-evidently true to any computer scientist. Programs are just instructions
on how to perform a particular computation. Computation is the abstract
manipulation of mathematical symbols. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
:-)
And what is the difference between a music CD, and a computer software CD?
Zilch, nada, nothing. The difference is in what the computer or music player
does with it, not in the CD itself.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Nobody should ever be sued for patent infringement for distribution or sale of
software, because it is *impossible* to infringe a patent by copying,
distributing or selling software. (It is only theoretically possible to
infringe by executing the software, and even then only in certain fields of use
contexts.)
If you agree with this, you may actually understand how computers work.
If you don't, you clearly still don't get it.
There is no difference between digital art and software. If you were right and
art wasn't patentable, I could simply distribute my software as abstract art
made up of 0s and 1s and be guaranteed that nobody would ever sue me for
distribution... but in fact people would sue.
*Software is math and it is illegal to patent math*. The fact that the courts
are pretending that it's OK to patent math only brings the courts into
disrepute.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
