|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
For your next step, outlining why a computer is simply a glorified calculator
seems like a good idea.
Given the level of understanding we seem to be dealing with, it unfortunately
seems necessary.
I would, but I don't have time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Will be doing... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
| You are just stating the obvious because the use of
equations and laws of
nature alone
are
not patenable. Likewise abstract ideas are also
unpatentable
- which in turn, should make abstract arguments like
software
is math also invalid (but I digress).
Further, software
works in a
virtual world not the physical so arguing based on a
physical outcome
is out of context.
So to debunk software patents, you must apply the
arguments used in Mayo. Specifically that some combination
of the equations
and laws of nature can be possibly
patented if the sum is greater
than the whole. Things
like Read-Copy-Update and ksplice involve more than
just
abstract ideas so these do form patentable material as the
implementation
is not obvious from the (abstract) ideas. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
| That way there's no electronic "magic". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
One of the lines of reasoning I hope to prove incorrect is the theory that
using a device for exactly what it was built for (and no more) somehow creates a
new machine.
The reasoning goes something like this:
The sextant was
built with knowledge of math, so it could be used to guide seafarers. Since
using a device makes use of math, the use of the device is equal to the
sextant.
The logical fallacy behind such a statement is very simple to
state:
The calculator = the sextant
The use of the calculator = the
use of the sextant
I've already covered how a calculator is used. To use a
sextant1, you align it with the star of your choice (for example the
sun or the north star), you take a reading on the sextant noting the objects
position relative to the horizons position in degrees. You then reference a
chart using the object, degree and date/time. This then tells you your relative
position in longitude/latitude.
Math is used in both the creation of the
calculator and sextant. The calculator is obvious: it needs to be able to
perform math calculations and does so via electricity. In the sextant it might
not be so obvious: math is involved in making the degrees reading between the
objects (the sun and horizon) useful.
To apply the reasoning that "using
the device makes it a new device" to the calculator, you get:
Punching 1+1=
on the keypad makes a different machine then punching 1+2= on the
keypad.
To apply the same reasoning to the sextant, you get:
Aligning
the Sun with the horizon makes a different machine then aligning the North Star
with the horizon.2
I hope I've clearly shown the fallacy to
comparing the "use of one device" to the "creation of another device". That's a
misleading statement at best. The creation of one device must be compared with
the creation of another device. The use of one device must be compared with the
use of the other device.
Conclusion: Using a calculator for
exactly what it was built for is no different then using a sextant for exactly
what it was built for. To claim using a device for exactly what it was built
for is somehow a new machine is logically untenable.
1: I am likely to
need correction on my understanding of the sextant. I've never used on myself,
and am going by memory of what I read a LONG time ago. I'm not sure if it can
only measure one of longitude/latitude, I'm sure someone can correct me on that
point.
2: Some may very well now change their reasoning to try and argue
that since the calculator uses electricity for it's task rather then elbow
grease... running electricity through the device for one set of inputs can some
how make a different machine then running electricity through the device for a
different set of inputs whereas elbow grease can not. This is no less
fallacious. If one created a digital sextant which used a digital reading in
the eyepiece instead of an arm with the degrees on it - this digital sextant
would operate no differently then the original physical sextant. It would also
be subject to same rules of non changing that the original sextant must
obey.
As an interesting note, if such a sextant were built, one would not
have to stop at providing the degrees. One could build such a digital sextant
to also contain the charts that used to be referenced as well as an internal
time piece. As a result, the sextant could provide a direct reading on the
latitude/longitude. Should such a new device as a digital sextant be patentable
subject matter? Most certainly. However, it's direct use should be no more
patent eligible then using the calculator:
Align the sun to the horizon in
the eyepiece of the device.
Exactly the same device as:
Align the north
star to the horizon in the eyepiece of the device.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT |
Digital calculators were eventually set so they could handle simple
programming. You would create a new formula by naming it, identifying the
variables and the calculation1:
Name: Calculate Simple
Interest
Variables
- P
- r
- t
Calculation: P * r * t
When you wished to use the formula you entered, you
called it up by name and entered the inputs:
5000 .05 5
After that, the
calculator does it's thing and gives you a response of: 1250.
The use of
this calculator is no different from the original except you - the user - could
enter formulas to speed up your use of the calculator with fewer keypad
presses.
Should the new, programmable calculator be considered patent
eligible subject matter? Certainly.
Should the use of the calculator be
considered patent eligible subject matter? Not anymore then the
non-programmable calculator. In both cases, all points that apply to the
non-programmable calculator applies to the basic programmable
calculator2.
Conclusion: To use the basic programmable
calculator for exactly what it was built for should not be patent eligible
subject matter.
1: This is a very rough process flow, not likely to be
exact for any simple programmable calculator. It's focus is on the process
rather then the specific details of how to program it. Like computers, not all
programmable calculators are programmed the same way.
2: To
clarify:
Point 1: Math and the application thereof is not
patentable.
Point 2: The device is being used for exactly what it was
built for.
Point 3: Nothing new is granted to the public that the
public does not already have. But something is being removed from the public:
"to program formula X into the device for future use".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Now, you can get a much more advance programmable
calculator. One equipped with the 3 core logic structures1 you
find in any computer. These 3 core structures form the rest of the logic
structures:
Sequential processing: first get the glass, then fill the glass
with water, then drink the water
Decision logic processing: if the
apple is red eat it, otherwise put it back.
Loop logic processing: pick
a chocolate from the box, eat it, check to see if there are more chocolates in
the box and repeat until all chocolates are gone.
This time, as a user, you
have a few more options for your equation. Perhaps you know the total interest
paid, the interest rate and the time. How would you find out how much the
original borrowed amount is?
Original formula:
I = P * r * t
The
new formula starts with trying to find the principle - the amount you are
missing:
P = I / ( r * t )2
1250 / ( 5% * 5 years) =
5000
With the advanced logic, you can now put both calculations into a
single function:
Name: Simple Interest
Formula
Variables
- I
- P
- r
- t
Logic:
- If I is null then P * r * t
- If P is null then I / ( r *
t)
Now you pull up the function, enter the three values you have into
the associating variables and the let the calculator perform it's "magic". Only
now... it's no longer magical because you know exactly how it works.
You
know have the ability to enter all possible combinations of the math formula for
compound interest to use any 3 values to find the fourth. You, the owner of the
advanced programmable calculator, can do this.
Should the device, the
advanced programmable calculator, be patentable subject matter?
Yes!
Should the use of the device for exactly what it was built for be
patentable subject matter? Not anymore then either of the two previous
calculators3 or the sextant.
Conclusion: To use the
advanced programmable calculator for exactly what it was built for should not be
patent eligible subject matter. Not even if you make use of the additional
logic functionality in the device!
1: For an example of the more advanced
logic structures to show how they are derived from the core 3:
Case logic
processing: if apple is red then eat it, if apple is yellow then throw it, if
apple is green then put it back.
2: My math is rusty, I actually had
to work that out :)
3: To clarify:
Point 1: Math and the application
thereof is not patentable.
Point 2: The device is being used for
exactly what it was built for.
Point 3: Nothing new is granted to the
public that the public does not already have. But something is being removed
from the public: "to program advanced formula X into the device for future
use".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
