|
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
Any patent writer worth his salt would write the circuit description such that
it covered both cases.
And even if he didn't, the "doctrine of equivalents" would have him
covered in many cases.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
The mathematical definition of an algorithm has to do with how algorithms
aggregate value to mathematics.
An engineering definition of an algorithm must be different because engineering
is much more than math.
The AND and OR algorithms from an electrical/electronic engineering standpoint
are different from the computer science definition found above them in more then
just the descriptive way.
While AND and OR implementations may be patentable from the engineering
standpoint, they are an integral part of the machine in the software/computer
science standpoint.
From the engineering standpoint as you describe, they are created completely in
hardware, You refer to electric signal interpretations, and there may be
different designs possible to accomplish the same algorithm. It's those designs
that would be patentable. The algorithm by itself does nothing for end
functionality.
From a CS standpoint, they are instructions that are used in larger
constructions. The implementation depends on the underlying hardware design.
And lastly they are primitives that define the "natural" environment
where creations can be conceived. They cannot be patentable at this level no
more then DNA or Cells can be patentable as they are found in their natural
environment.
And additionally, from a software standpoint, there are many levels of
"natural" environments that can be created on top of one another.
Software patents seem to bunch all those virtual levels into one environment
known as the software environment.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
...in the Muslim world in the Middle Ages. His name gives us the word. The use
of the term in mathematics has not really changed since then (though the term
has gotten more carefully defined), and POIR is correct about the definition.
An algorithm is a well-defined and unambiguous procedure for abstract symbol
manipulation.
It is a very well-defined term. When we say that software is a mathematical
algorithm, there is no doubt about what we mean. Except among patent lawyers
whose salaries depend on denying reality.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
What's the history of circuit patents?
Were the concepts of AND and OR logic gates patented or specific
implementations? I assume only the specific implementations.
If software patents are allowed, the same principle should apply. The concept of
doing something with software should not be patentable, only specific innovative
methods of doing it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
