|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
In your view?
Your view is clearly wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
The bigger point:
[emphasis added]
" Guitar tunes are "writings"
under the IP clause, and software should be, too, *even if
useful.* I understand those arguments, even though I don't
agree with them."
WHY don't you agree with those arguments?
The request for clarification:
" The computer is useful, it does do something. If it
just calculates, then that's not useful, and that's not
patentable. That's the pure math. But if it deals with
inputs and outputs to achieve some specific useful end,
that's different than the guitar."
I think you are being very unclear here. Calculation is
not useful?? Tell that to an artillery officer. Also, are
you now saying that computer hardware is unpatentable?
I think the guitar does achieve a specific useful end - it
plays songs. The main difference between the guitar and a
shovel is that the ioutput of a guitar is copyrightable.
That's a clear and important difference. Can you be as
clear about why software is (can be?) "useful" and/or
"specific" and a general-purpose computer is not (cannot
be)?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
