|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
You're talking past each other, because your'e using
different definitions of "anticipated".
Mr Risch is saying that the inventors of the computer had no
concept of ATMs, or the Internet, or ... various things that
nobody today has thought of yet. (Possibly Turing did
imagine ATMs for example, though he probably didn't guess
how commercially successful they'd be.) Ergo, they didn't
"anticipate" those specific uses - they didn't contribute to
public knowledge by writing down "and you can also use it to
do X".
Where the rest of us are starting from is the plain fact
that vast numbers of software patents are REALLY BLEEDING
OBVIOUS, and take the form "Do X over the Web" or "Do X on a
mobile device", where X is something totally non-novel, like
"buy a book". The harm of these is so obvious that we
dont' really care whether there "could" (as Mr Risch says)
exist some other X that nobody has thought of before.
IF such an X exists, then we can start a chain of logic to
discuss under what circumstances a program that does X might
be patentable under some idealized version of patent law.
That's where Mr Risch enjoys spending his time. The rest of
us would rather fix the actual problems first and worry
about theoretical possibilities later.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|