|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
"WHY don't you agree with those arguments?"
I don't agree, because I don't think that the dividing line
in the IP clause means that something must be one or the
other. I think if guitar music promoted the progress of the
useful arts, it could be patentable - for example if a
specific tune was able to dig holes through harmonic
resonance.
"Calculation is not useful?? Tell that to an artillery
officer."
I am saying it is not practically useful - it doesn't do
anything. If you put the calculation into a cannon so that
the cannon is now more accurate, then that does do
something, and we have to assess whether the combination is
worthy of patenting.
"Also, are you now saying that computer hardware is
unpatentable?"
No, I'm saying that the dividing line should not be whether
the process is implemented in software or hardware. It
should be whether the process is novel, etc.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
I think you've got that a bit wrong. The output of a guitar is *sound*.
As is the output of a computer when running Clementine (or iTunes, for Mr
Risch).
A musician reads the music, inputs the SYMBOLS into the guitar, and out comes
the music.
A computer reads the hard disc, inputs the SYMBOLS into the ALU, and out comes
the music.
I think Mr Risch is making "a distinction without a difference". And
until you CAN make that difference, I am sorry but you are going to get torn to
shreds, because that position, as Mr Spock would say, "is not
logical".
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
