|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
Except in France, where the Academie's dictionary is the definitive definition
of the "standard" language.
;)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Thanks for you posting.
And I agree with your distinctions between deSCRIBE and deFINE. I especially
like the way to used case for additional effect. :)
Perhaps my point is still missed. Whether a description or a definition,
whether any material following the established norms of mathematics and/or
computations theory, the algorithms themselves define and describe a process.
That process is imaginary or theoretical until the steps in the algorithm are
executed.
Once they are executed by the machine, perhaps from the volition of a user,
computations theory has been manifested itself into reality, and the software
became more then an algorithm or mathematical model. The described process
occurs.
This is much easier to understand if you imagine old computers that processed
algorithms encoded in stacks of punch-cards.
The punch-cards, the software, algorithm, fruit of computation theory,
mathematical model, requires processing by a machine in a very deliberate way
for the design of the algorithm to effect reality.
Until it is executed, absolutely nothing is processed by the algorithms and all
the theory, math that is described or defined by the "software"
encoded therein is not and has not effected reality. Hence Math and computation
theory as far as building their models or algorithms or it's descriptions of how
to execute such model or algorithms is unprocessed and does not process itself.
Processing occurs after some outside volition is introduced, like putting the
punchcards into the loader and pressing enter.
My point is that for software patents make sense, however infringement cannot
occur merely from possessing or developing the software, software has to be
executed. So that it's effects of it's design on reality become real.
Not a lawyer
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
