|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
In this discussion we should keep in mind that none of that programmer activity
is the subject matter of a typical software patent.
Patent attorneys tell me that when engineer think about their invention in
mathematical terms it doesn't automatically mean the invention is mathematics.
For example one may use mathematical methods to design a new rocket or a new
internal combustion engine. But then the rocket or the engine are still
patentable machines.
When we bring up formal methods of software development lawyers and courts will
just see this on a par with the maths of rockets and combustion engine. The real
legal issue is the claims. Are they drawn to mathematical subject matter? Formal
methods of development are not typically the subject matter of the claim. The
execution of the program is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmenjay on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Hi Bob
I don't think you got my main point.
- The Dijkstra article you pointed to was primarily about formal programming.
- You used it as an argument that programming == maths.
- While formal programming *is* essentially maths, may main point was: Very few
people (~0%) use formal programming.
Regular programming is not a simplification of formal programming, it is a
completely different paradigm.
(In around 30 years writing writing about IT, some of that professionally, that
might be the first time I've ever used the word "paradigm") :-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
