|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
In the old days when computers used punch cards to hold computer instructions,
algorithms and such, it was plainly visible that the stack of cards did not
execute or process anything by themselves. They where in fact processed by a
machine and an operator. It's very clear in this case that the
"software" is inert, without volition.
The implication that a process can be performed is absolutely different than the
process really being executed. The operator of a computer applies his or her
volition to execute the punchcards (or equivalent) and causes a cascade of
events that are guided by the instructions in the punchcards (or equivalent)
that results in the completion of a task when everything goes in accordance to
the underlying computations theory or model.
It then is the machine guided by the user that causes you computations theory
implications to become reality, and it's this aspect where the algorithms are
applied in a way that effects reality that makes them patentable. The fact that
users will cause them to be executed with the help of a machine.
If nobody ran patented software operations, there would not be infringement
because... The software never became anything more then just a sequence of
instructions, an algorithm whatever the implications may have been.
Even if an implication can even be fortified with the idea that there is
intention, there still is a distinction between the *possibility* of a process
and the reality of a process. The *possibility* of a process effecting reality
and the reality of the effects of a process.
I don't understand why you hold so firmly to the idea that the mere possibility
or implication of a process constitutes the process itself. I admit that in
normal day to day life, software is created with a purpose and is executed.
Nobody buys a computer with the intention of never turning it on, so maybe my
position is degenerate from that standpoint. But challenge your assumption that
software, or any algorithm must be executed or processed.
It's only when software is executed that it becomes more then just an algorithm
and it's effects on the world become real. It's when the computations theory
becomes reality. It's when the algorithms and theory become more and when it
could makes sense to understand applicable software patents.
The judicial system is full of implications and assumption. Maybe one of those
assumption is that software is always executed. I've never seen a lawyer try to
argue as a defense, that the burden of proof the plaintiff has to overcome is
that that execution of software occurred. They presume execution. And if such
an assumed stands, then software and computation theory, as well as math
problems in a high school math book process themselves, as you suggest.
INAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
