|
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
So if I say moving the gearshift makes a new machine of the
vehicle, then it is a new machine. Just because you say it
is so, does not actually make it so. You can point to all
the bad patents you want. It does not change reality.
The fact that someone got patents for snake-oil does not
make the snake-oil real medicine. The whole point of this
discussion is how folks like the courts and patent office
have gotten this wrong. So you can't use the courts and
patent office to try to claim that making the sort of changes
that the computer was designed for, actually makes that
computer into a new machine. No more than playing new
music makes the music player a new machine. No more than
displaying a new image, makes that display a new machine.
All this sort of useful change is part of the design of
these machines.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
But the particular change I have shown, the installation of
software, is a
change that makes a new machine.
This is what
should be proven. You didn't. You are just asserting that this is the case. In
contrast this article provides technical arguments to the effect that this is
not the case.
Rather, the computer is a component of the
claimed
machine, which is defined as a computer component in combination with a
software
component.
The technical arguments in the article give several
reasons why this combination is just a change to the computer which doesn't make
a new machine. You are defining as a machine something which isn't. Also
programmers know ways to program a computer where the combination you have just
defined will have no physical existence because the function of software are
achieved differently.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|