|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
Your assertion that software must improve the machine otherwise it wouldn't be
installed is as silly as saying a PDF file must improve the computer otherwise
it wouldn't be in the computer.
We may want things in the computer that doesn't improve it. And if we want it on
the computer then of course we will do what it takes to bring it there. This
alone doesn't make an improvement to the computer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
Hand that platinum wire some instructions on how to be a lightbuld. Does that
do anything?
Now, hand your computer some instructions for what you want it to do. Does that
do anything. (Hint, those instructions are commenly called a
"program")
For the flippant answer, "computer" used to be a job title.
You seem to be using a misleading definition of "improve" here.
Everyone else is talking about improving the *capabilities* of the machine. You
seem to be talking about improving the *usability* of the machine (ie, making it
easier to tell it to do something it already can do).
Teaching someone that "HOLD!" means "Stop what you are doing
right now, you might be about to step onto a live claymore mine" doesn't
improve a person's ability to do anything, it just means that you can add
information to their head faster.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
Is applying electricity to said lightbulb an improvement? It's certainly useful,
but it is entirely an expected and predictable outcome.
As many have said, Patents are not the end all and be all of life. Software has
been Copyrightable since the beginning and there is no reason for that not to be
sufficient.
Just as music for a player piano is copyrightable but not patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
