|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
You are unfair, or perhaps you haven't read everything. This discussion has been
diffused across several threads, not just the current one.
Pr Risch has acknowledged the technical correctness of the instruction cycle.
And he has indicated that the case law could be revisited. However, if I
understand him correctly, there is an existing practice in patent law to allow
writing patent claims on a machine by describing its function instead of its
structure. This is not something exclusive to computers. It is possible to claim
a machine made of levers and pulleys in this manner too. If we want to get some
case law that match reality for software there is a legal issue of what to do
with this practice.
This is a problem for the lawyers and the court. But this problem is there and
part of their task, if they want to get software right, is to figure what to do
about it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Well, if that was the plan, I doubt he'd
be asking the conference to let us view
streaming video and has now signed a release
to allow it. That step would more likely
be done in the dark.
No. It's good faith, but he still does not
see what software is. I grant you that. But
that doesn't preclude that at some point, the
dots will all click into place from what he's
heard when some new random piece of info hits
the brain.
Education is almost *always* worth it, in my view.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
