|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
If they did, then none of the software patents would exist.
The fact that software patents do exist implies that the examiners do not have
much, if any, experience in mathematics. Especially lacking with boolean algebra
and how it applies to computer science.
Also lacking any experience in automata theory, lambda calculus, set theory, or
any other mathematics dealing with computer science.
Engineering, even electrical, doesn't necessarily apply. To me, it looks like
they are applying continuous mathematics to situations that are non-continuous
(such as boolean algebra, set theory, lambda calculus...) and thus coming to
false conclusions about software.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
Weasel words as used by lawyers have no valid definition.
You sir are wrong. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
You state:
Even though patents are written by attorneys (who
also must be engineers or scientists)
Bolding mine. Perhaps
you could direct me to the appropriate Legislation or Rule that requires the
attorney filing for a patent to be an engineer/scientist.
I'd be
interested to read through that.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Curious Question - Authored by: TennSeven on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 08:12 PM EDT
- Thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Thanks! - Authored by: TennSeven on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Ahh - act vs act - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
|
|
|
|