|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
The software is math argument relies on principles of mathematics. It uses the
term of art as defined in mathematics. Sure a patent attorney can make all sort
of argument based on alternative definitions. But then the attorney is no longer
discussing the applicable principles of mathematics and he is no longer
discussing what is argued when we say software is math.
In computation theory the algorithm is not the mere description of the
procedure. Execution is covered by the concept. Textbooks of computation theory
are very clear on this. Like number is not a written sequence of digits a
description of the procedure is not the procedure.
Also the algorithm does *not* describe a machine like the math of engineering
describe levers and pulleys. The symbols are abstractions distinct from their
physical representations. You argument is like saying "this is not a patent
on a mathematical calculation, this is a patent on a process for moving a pencil
on paper and leaving marks of lead." Sorry but this is making a distinction
without a difference.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
