|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
I'm not sure we disagree here. I can see why the Sun patent
is objectionable. This is a very simple, pure processing
patent. This would likely fall under my lack of practical
utility prong - it is not a process that leads to a useful
result. It doesn't do anything - all it does is match a
symbolic reference to a numerical reference. It is, as you
say, math, and math doesn't do anything.
I do disagree that it is like most other software patents. I
think most software patents look more like Swype or the
Lodsys patents - a particular solution to an external
problem. Same with the papers you note. Many are very
abstract, as you say. How do we deal with word proximity in
searching? How do we do pattern recognition for OCR? etc.
And they build the mathematical construct. Where we seem to
disagree is that I think if someone figures out the correct
modeled construct and implement it in available hardware,
they've done something concrete (more like Diehr) that
happens to involve math as part of the solution.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
