|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Yes, I understand this, but patent claims aren't on the
software in the
abstract. Consider the RSA claim (junk
included - I just copied from Google
patents):
1. A cryptographic communications system comprising:
A.
a communications channel,
B. an encoding means coupled to said channel and
adapted for
transforming a transmit message word signal M to a
ciphertext word
signal C and for transmitting C on said
channel,
where M corresponds to a
number representative of a message
and
OSMSn-I
where n is a composite number of
the form
«=/>•?
where p and q are prime numbers, and
where C corresponds to
a number representative of
an enciphered form of said message and corre-
sponds to
CsaM''(mod n)
where e is a number relatively prime to 1 cm(p— l,q—
1), and
C. a decoding means coupled to said channel and adapted for
receiving C
from said channel and for transforming C to a
receive message word signal
M'
where M' corresponds to a number representative of a
deciphered form of C
and corresponds to
M's=Cd(mod n)
where d is a multiplicative inverse of
e(mod(l cm((p-l),(q-
l)))).
Note a few things here:
1. Sure
sounds like hardware to me. It has an encoder means,
a decoder means, etc. And
that means is a structure - the
patent describes terminals, shift registers,
etc., all of
which are physical.
2. There is nothing in this claim that says
the
implementation must be software. If you made a circuit that
was equivalent
to the registers, that would be infringing
3. There is nothing in this claim
that says the
implementation must be a general purpose computer. It could
be a
custom built specific purpose device.
4. And yet, it seems clear to all
(including me) that this
is math, and abstract.
So, yes, software is abstract,
but when the patent claim is
for a "device that does stuff" determining what
must be
software and thus abstract math is not nearly as clear cut
as you are
making it seem. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
