[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I present E=MC² as prime exhibit A.

The proof of it was never done before, and it certainly wasn't too obvious even to experts in the given field.

However, the point I'm making is: before one can discuss the limitations of an applied patent, one must first discuss whether particular subject matter is even patentable.

To suggest software as applied to a computer is patentable subject matter is to suggest "entering 1+1= into a calculator" is patentable subject matter.

Do you really believe "entering 1+1= into a calculator" should be patentable subject matter? Forget that such a basic calculation should obviously fail if it is patentable subject matter.

Do you believe a process outlined as "entering 1+1= into a calculator" should be patentable subject matter and why?

After all... what's the difference between "entering the proof of E=MC² into a computer" vs "entering the proof of E=MC² into a calculator"?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• There's lots of difficult mathematics... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
  • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT

I'm interested in whether there is a thing or a process that does something that was never done before, and was not obvious to do.

---
hp

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• All software patents are pure math - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:22 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]