|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
"Did it have that capability before the software was written? Well, maybe,
but not that particular message. It doesn't have that capability until I load
the software onto the machine."
This is the kind of fuzzy thinking that gets you in trouble here. The answer
to your question is yes, period: the computer was always capability of sending
that particular message to the display. It simply hadn't been instructed to do
so until you loaded the software.
"I think you are right. But I also think
that there can be a set of instructions for a general
purpose computer that causes it to perform a process or to
be a "thing" that does something it wasn't capable of."
This is another example of fuzzy (and patently bad) thinking. Much like what PJ
pointed out earlier where you were trying to take a certain branch of
mathematics and label it "not mathematics".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
2. We have an apparatus. It is an apparatus having the
capability of
printing "Hello World" on the screen. Did it
have that capability before the
software was written?
Yes, of course it did. Loading software into
a computer does not change what it is, nor does it change its capabilities in
any way. Any existing legal conclusions to the contrary are factually
wrong. If we decide to let lawyers make up their own definitions for how
reality works, it leads us to the situation we are in now: laws and precedents
that are inconsistent with reality.
But I also think
that there
can be a set of instructions for a general
purpose computer that causes it to
perform a process or to
be a "thing" that does something it wasn't capable
of.
Then you don't understand what a general-purpose computer
is.
It is "capable of" anything that any set of instructions you can
possibly load into it would instruct it to do, and it is
not capable of anything else. That is what it was designed
to do. It is the intended purpose -- it can compute anything that
is
computable (subject to certain resource limitations).
Like a Universal
Turing machine, a real-world computer can't actually do anything other
than process inputs, perform mathematical computations and emit outputs.
Software is nothing but a complex set of inputs provided to this general-purpose
computing machine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
| I want to make sure we don't get confused in terminology. In computer science
the instruction set
is a term of art. It refers to the list of instructions the CPU is capable of
executing. I see that you use the phrase "instruction set" as something
synonymous with programs. This is potentially confusing. Programmers never call
programs "instruction sets".
The list of instructions in the instruction set
is fixed by the designers of the CPU. A programmer is not allowed to insert in
his program an instruction which is not in this list. The CPU is designed to
execute any sequence of instruction in any order no matter how creative the
programmer may be. So I don't know what you mean by this:
And in
this example, I think you are right. But I also think
that there can be a set of
instructions for a general
purpose computer that causes it to perform a process
or to
be a "thing" that does something it wasn't capable of. It
has to be a
process/thing that the designers of the computer
didn't think of, and that
wasn't obvious to anyone at the
time that use was thought of. That is an
application of the
math to make the machine do something new.
A
computer program never contains any new instruction which isn't already in the
instruction set defined by the designer of the computer. Here I don't understand
what you have in mind. Do you think a programmer can make up his own
instructions? He can't.
Are you familiar with the notion of universal
algorithm? This is a mathematical concept from computation theory. There is a
category of mathematical algorithms that are capable of doing every possible
mathematical computation. We know they have this capability because there are a
mathematical theorems that proves this is the case. We can take that as a
mathematical truth. If we make a circuit for computing a universal algorithm
then, as a matter of mathematical truth, it has the capability to do every
computation as long as we don't exceed the available resources. The available
resources don't change with computer programming. Any adaptation of software
doesn't change the machine here. We just look within the range of possible
computations for one that fit within the hardware constraints.
The
instruction cycle of a computer is such a universal algorithm. The term of art
to describe this mathematical construct is a Random
Access Stored Program although real life implementations are more complex
than the models studied by mathematicians.
In this context I don't see how
there can be a capability to compute something that wasn't planned for by the
circuit designer. He has built on a mathematical theory that says if the
mathematical computation is computable at all then his chosen computer can
compute it.
Here you have written something that to me is applicable to all
programs
Your point, if I am understanding it, is that this is
all
just the computer, and the software does nothing to enhance
the capabilities
that were already there. It's just a set of
instructions. Indeed, under that
view, that fact that it is
math is irrelevant - there's just nothing added to
the basic
machine.
Yes , the point that nothing is added to the
machine is orthogonal to where the process is math. And nothing is ever added to
the machine because the programmer is not allowed to make up his own
instructions. He may only choose a combination of instructions from the set
permitted by the CPU designer. This adds nothing to the machine.
The
statement that software is math builds on this observation. If no new machine is
made, if nothing is added to the computer, then what is the process? It is the
execution of the instruction cycle with new inputs and a limitation to a
specific field of use. And the instruction cycle is a mathematical algorithm.
There is no need to parse the patent to figure out whether an algorithm is
recited. The algorithm is there by virtue of the way the machine is
designed.
The ways capabilities beyond the plain mathematical computation
can be added are either (1) by setting field of use limitation which assign a
non mathematical semantics to the bits; this never adds to the machine because
semantics is never part of the machine structure; the process is a mathematical
algorithm with a field of use limitation; or (2) by integrating the computer
into something like the Diehr rubber curing process. Then the patent is no
longer on just the software. We are longer arguing the patent is on a new
machine made by programming the computer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- And even on those processors that do - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM EDT
- disgusting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Can do vs. Will do - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Ha. You make the complaint of every mathematician makes - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Your last paragraph is funny. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- General-purpose computer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- "Capable"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Atoms - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- People stuck in the wrong environment - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Mrisch, from a patent lawyer's point of view, your program was SUGGESTED - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
But I also think that there can be a set of instructions for a
general purpose computer that causes it to perform a process or to be a
"thing" that does something it wasn't capable of. It has to be a process/thing
that the designers of the computer didn't think of, and that wasn't obvious to
anyone at the time that use was thought of. That is an application of the math
to make the machine do something new.
People who invent or create
new and novel ways to use general purpose computers naturally want to protect
their IP and process type patents , at first glance, appear to make this
possible. Process patents , however, have a natural limitation [that
helps to prevent their misuse] that is missing for software patents on
general purpose computers. Process patents, like curing rubber,
are limited to the specific processes that they protect.
Software
patents on general purpose computers, however, are not limited to
specific languages, specific operating systems, and specific hardware because
they are filed for general purpose computers. It is the scope or the
unlimited "application of the patentable idea" to ALL computer languages,
operating systems, and hardware that we software developers simply can not live
with!
Copyright is the correct IP tool to use for software
because it is limited to the specific software program/invention/process/thing
being protected. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
"2. We have an apparatus. It is an apparatus having the
capability of printing "Hello World" on the screen. Did it
have that capability before the software was written?"
Yes.
"Well,
maybe, but not that particular message."
Wrong. It always had that capability. Just like pen and ink always had the
capability of writing ANY POSSIBLE book. You don't get to patent Moby Dick!
"It doesn't have that
capability until I load the software onto the machine."
Wrong. I can write whatever software I like and I can write my own Hello World
software. The machine always had the capability.
You really don't understand general-purpose computers, Mr. Risch. It's
unfortunate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
