|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Well, you can interpret that argument that way, if you like.
Or you can interpret it in light of the actual patents being
discussed. "method consisting of: use a computer to do X
task that you already do using paper and pencil" IS obvious
no matter what X is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jonathon on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
>That has no bearing on the position that all uses of a computer are obvious
If you have a deep understanding of General Systems Theory, The YiJing, and the
QBL, then virtually everything is obvious, once one puts some thought and plays
with the "problem". The field in which the "problem" occurs
is irrelevant. The solution has been found, and it is simply a matter of
applying it to the new problem.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|