decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
This is not about bits being different from atoms | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
This is not about bits being different from atoms
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
If the argument is "show me the machine", you need to start
with the definition of "machine", which I did in replying to
the sibling of the post to which I'm now replying.

Your Reductio ad Absurdam argument doesn't work.
" If changing bits
in a computer make a new machine, then no computer can run
software because as
soon as an instruction is executed, some bits are modified
and this is no longer
the same computer."

No, all you've proven is that more than one "machine" is
created while the program executes. It's empirically
demonstrable that computers can run software; that has
nothing to do with how many "machines" are involved.

I concede it's a surprising result to say that software
typically creates thousands of "new machines" every second,
but that won't trouble a lawyer too much. The law has had
little opportunity to consider the question in such a stark
example, but by my reading, existing law says that a single
patent can cover more than one machine. One could take the
view that if inventing a single machine is patentable, then
*a fortiori* inventing millions of machines is "more
patentable."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )