|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
I'm not a mathematician, but a I understand it you can prove, mathematically (at
least for some cases - likely for most?), which problems fall into which
complexity class, such as NP-hard.
There is no need for "experts" or hindsight, just math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
EXACTLY!
It's a HARDWARE problem. And patents on hardware are perfectly okay!
The point about SOFTWARE is that it ALWAYS WORKS PERFECTLY! (for the definition
of "perfectly" that someone else pointed out - it does exactly what
you told it to, whether that's what you meant or not :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
We can't know that computer systems will work in practice. We might
think it will work, but there's a reason we hammer with QA
testing.
Because it cost less in the general case and the
implications of failure is not severe enough to justify the cost of doing the
full analysis.
And sometimes the hardware just doesn't behave like
we think it should.
It seems your software patent is actually on
hardware...else you would not care about hardware
limitations.
That said, your "hard" problems point is well taken.
I'm happy to have experts say which problems were not hard - though there's
often a hindsight bias. I would prefer that they say so before they see what the
solution was.
Your claim that you are programmer does not seem to
match reality that well. The math behind reductions and proofs of difficulty
does in no way depend on us having any kind of hindsight. If you lack the proper
education you are not skilled enough in the art to evaluate what is the state of
the art.
Please show us patents that actually have
claims that depend on this difference. Your trouble is of course that the
difference is entirely philosophical and not connected to the actual operation
of the general purpose computer so your task is hopeless. For the computer
everything is on/off switches.
The Swype patent is an example. I
installed a ROM that didn't have the .apk. My keyboard didn't swipe. It didn't
have the capability in the "will it do it" sense even though it had the
capability in the "can it do it" sense. I reinstalled the old ROM, and suddenly
my phone had the capability in the "will it do it" sense.
In
other posts you have repeatedly refuted that you depend on "makes a new machine"
argument...but here you again are talking about how installing software makes
the computer into a new machine that infringe. You argument is as convincing as
the statement "you have to turn on the computer to make it execute software"
would be to prove that the patent is limited in any meaningful way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
