|
|
|
| Authored by: halfhuman on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
Unless you respond to this honestly, addressing the issue raised by PoIR, we at
groklaw should dismiss you as simply a more sophisticated troll.
Thanks again, PoIR, your posts are timely, accurate and detailed, and this is
one more.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
Hi PoIR,
First, let me thank you for your past articles explaining why software is
mathematics. I read all or parts of several of them. I don't claim to have
groked or retained it all, but I did learn some things. And it was
interesting.
As far as software making a new machine goes, I agree with you that, understood
literally, that is nonsense. For all the reasons you have stated. But when I
have seen that argument put forth I suspected the author might have been
speaking metaphorically or by analogy rather than believing it was literally a
new machine. My apologies if you have already considered this. I don't
remember seeing such in anything of yours that I have read. (And since IANAL I
would not hazard a guess about the legal implications of a literal vs
non-literal use of such a phrase.)
Again, thank ou for the effort (which appeared to be considerable) you put into
those articles.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
You have gone into detail why you dont think we should have
them. That is not my question. But how do we go from millions
of patents to none.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
We need to distinguish changes which are the
normal operation of the
machine and changes like replacing
the engine which genuinely alter the machine
structure.
Exactly the main point from the article. Stop focusing
on
what already exists and focus on what is the new idea that
is
implemented.
The CCPA argument in Bernhart lacks
the
explanation of why a change in computer memory is a change
in
computer
structure. Memory is changed billions of times per second.
Computations can't
proceed without changing the memory contents. If Bernhart is
right no computer
runs any program because as soon the memory is modified it
is no longer the same
computer.
Any computer is in a different
state when the memory has
been changed and, thus, it is a different
computer.
Similarly, loading an previously empty car
makes it a
different car. While physically you might not see
any different but the car now
has a totally different mass.
That extra mass can potentially cause completely
different
handling.
Superchargers, turbo-chargers, nitrous oxide injectors
etc.,
are all ways to modify the car engine that is running. So
[a] running
program can be modified in memory while it is
run is no different. So if
superchargers etc., can be
patented, then a modifying a program in memory while
running
can also be patented. Thus, ksplice, see for example Ksplice provides
updates without
reboots, is patentable invention
especially since
the outcome is more than
the sum of the whole.
But there is one huge provision, which also is the
theme
that both Mark and you agree on, the change has to be
sufficiently
meaningful. Thus, the really hard part is
avoiding
the idea and
focus
on the actual invention. Talking about
function of the CPU is
only relevant to CPU patents
not software patents. As we found with
Oracle vs.
Google, the details such as symbolic vs. numeric
references were sufficient for
a jury to distinguish that
Google's implementations did not infringe Oracle's
patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
That's one of the serious problems with patent law. Those two cases featured
the judges attempting to rule on questions of fact (not questions of law!) and
getting them WRONG.
They have to be thrown out as cases of "clear error of fact". That
would solve a lot of the mess we currently have.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
| I'll try to address these comments.
1. Yes, you're right from a theoretical
perspective. No
dispute.
2. From a practical perspective, I disagree. If I
replace my
phone software with software that disables the cell antenna,
it is
practically and functionally a different machine. And
if I add navigation
software to my phone, it also becomes a
navigation device and it wasn't before.
Yes, all the parts
are there, but the use of the machine is far different.
Alappat follows this view: "a general purpose computer in
effect
becomes a special purpose computer once it is
programmed to perform particular
functions pursuant to
instructions from program software." The court is
applying a
practical difference, not a theoretical one.
3. Even without that
distinction, I am not understanding the
fixation on a new machines for two
reasons:
a. Processes are patentable, so new software in a machine
means we
can use it for a process we could not before, and
that has nothing to do with
this "new machine" distinction;
b. Patent law has never required that every
patent cover
a new machine. Instead, it has required that the
capabilities of
machines be new. That's why we have a
gazillion patents on plows, flour
hoppers, and other such
stuff. Plows may have all the same pieces, but if they
are
made if different materials, made in different ways, or have
the parts
configured slightly differently, they can be
patentable. Software is being
treated the same way - in
practice. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- You're so wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- still unpersuasive - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: mipmip on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Well, since my credibility is on the line... - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- so the family minivan ... - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- You have not responded to the PolR's main point - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
