|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
the problem is patents on math are patents on thinking.
And that is not supposed to be patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
| Software shouldn't be treated as being different from
mathematics.
Because it isn't. No piece of software has ever been
written, that can do ANYTHING except mathematics. And the doing of it
(executing the software) is also mathematics. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
If you think row reduction is patentable, you lose. It's not. In fact, the
application of row reduction to any particular problem is not patentable either.
This is the hundreds-of-years-old standard: math isn't patentable.
But if you think that row reduction is patentable (by Karl Friedrich Gauss, who
discovered it) at least you're consistent.
If you don't think row reduction is patentable, then you should realize that NO
software is patentable. Not even the application of software to any particular
problem. It's the same principle.
If you have a novel combination of hardware, of course software can be part of
an invention involving a novel combination of hardware. *But the patentable
part has to be in the hardware or the combination of the hardware*.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
