|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
Think about that for a minute.
You, a lawyer, are disagreeing with dozens of practicing experts from the
software industry and the academic field of computer science, about "what
is software". We are telling you what the truth is about this question of
fact, and you are refusing to accept it.
Isn't it obvious by now that you, and the legal system, should throw out your
homegrown definitions of words like "software" and "machine"
and "capability" and adopt the definitions used by the professionals?
None of this would be difficult if the legal system would just accept the facts
about these things -- accept the reality of what computers are, and how they
actually work, and what software is. But that would lead you to the inescapable
conclusion that software should not be patentable, and (even though that is the
correct conclusion) you seem unwilling to be led there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
That said, what if it were hardwired - circuits did all the
work.
What's your stance then? Is it still math?
It depends on how the
claim is written. If the claim is limited to this particular circuit structure
and we are free to implement the same computation on another circuit then I say
this is a hardware patent for a specific circuit whose purpose is to compute
said algorithm.
But if the claim is written broadly so any hardware
implementing the algorithm would read on the patent then this is a patent on the
algorithm disguised as a hardware patent.
To put it simply, the calculator
is patentable, the calculation is not.
One of the issues I have
with software patent haters is that you can hardwire much of the solution, and
if you do, it hardly seems like that should suddenly make the
solution
patentable. That's why I prefer to look at the merits of the
invention
as opposed to the form of implementation.
See above, I think a
claim has to limit the claim to the specific structure to make a hardware
patent. When a claim define the machine by its capabilities this limitation on
structure is gone. The calculation becomes conflated with the calculator. This
is where the problems occur.
The problem with looking at the merits is it
bypasses the subject matter analysis. A claim on that software will be treated
as a claim on a physical machine made of atoms when this is not the invention.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Like I said in the main comment here- I think we are
disagreeing in
part about what is software.
I suspect there is very little (and
probably no) question in the minds of most of the professional programmers and
other technical folks here about what constitutes software.
The fact that a
disagreement appears to exist between you and the hundreds if not thousands of
years of expertise represented in this forum suggests to me that your view on
the matter may required revisiting.
I won't say your viewpoint is wrong, but
I certainly don't grok it as presented here.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>--->
Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
