|
|
|
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
No, software is something Brand New, it is much more than mere 'Maths'.
Sorry no.
Software is just a list of things to do. Humans have been making to do lists
since there where humans wanting to do one thing after another.
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
"No, software is something Brand New, it is much more than mere 'Maths'.
It isn't just Maths or Algorithms, it isn't (just) a recipe or design for
building/making something and it's a lot more than the fruits of labour."
Stated as a tautology, no proof. POIR and others have provided proof /
explanations that it IS math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
There's a good argument to be made that EVERYTHING is math.
Great example:
http://xkcd.com/435/
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
"...it isn't (just) a recipe..."
Well, actually, all software *is* just recipes - clearly
defined sequences of steps to produce certain results.
Rather than "recipe", you could say "mathematics" or
"algorithms", but the general public doesn't understand what
computer scientists and mathematicians mean by the term
"mathematics", and the general public doesn't have a clue
what an "algorithm" is.
But people can grasp that a recipe is a defined sequence of
steps (plus ingredients, which makes the analogy less than
perfect). If we use "recipe" to mean such a sequence, then
all software is recipes. And not just typical or usual
software, but really *all* software - it is mathematically
impossible for software to be anything else (see Po1r's
articles on this topic here on Groklaw).
I think our legal system really doesn't understand what
software really is. It has long be granted that mathematics
and algorithms cannot be patentable. Therefore, if our
courts understood software, they would reach the same
conclusion about software patents that is held by nearly all
computer scientists and programmers - that the entire
concept of software patents is illogical and based on a
factually incorrect belief regarding how computers work.
It is not as if there is any controversy among computer
scientists about whether software is math, any more than
there is controversy among biologists regarding evolution.
In each case, outsiders with vested interests try to claim
that controversy exists when it does not.
It seems like the courts think that although a short recipe
is not patentable, if you make a recipe long and complex
enough, it can then be patentable. Such reasoning seems
foreign to scientists, but I can't otherwise understand how
seemingly intelligent and knowledgable judges can accept
patents on collections of mathematical algorithms.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
