|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
It shows that the concept of "abstract idea" is very hard to
define.
By the way, thanks for pointing out the case law on
"mathematical formula", a related and equally vague concept:
if I understand correctly, it's unpatentable if it is
expressed as a mathematical formula in mathematical
notation, and still unpatentable if it's expressed in words
that are equivalent to a mathematical formula.
Logically, that would make just about any process
unpatentable. Yet the statute clearly allows patents on
processes. As I said before, arguing about the "real
defnition" of mathematical formula gets us nowhere. We need
to look to the practical intent of the statute/precedent,
ignoring the horrible choice of words, and argue whether
algorithm X is "more like" whatever the court really meant
by "mathematical formula" than it is like the stuff that
court plainly meant to allow.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Actually, law is like computer programming. A law is an
attempt to abstract away the details of individual cases
and arrive at an algorithm that will produce the correct
result in any similar situation. Semantic details like who
the parties are, where the dispute takes place, or what
specific facts are disagreed on, are not supposed to be
considered.
------------------------
Irony: falling off a chair while putting
up an OSHA workplace safety notice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
to me software is not an abstract idea. I would argue it is
one of many possible implementation of an idea.
software is to a computer like a story/lesson is to a brain.
like the brain processes the story/lesson so does the
computer process the software and if not forgotten it can be
used again.
I argue that nobody will call a human who learned a new
story a new species or even a new human.
analogous I argue that a computer getting a new program is
not a new device.
Regards, Martin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|