|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
There is no physical component to software. The mathematical logic of a
computer's instruction set is dependent upon neither the physical composition of
the "machine" nor the nature of the signals being represented within
it.
A computer program does not care if the 1's and 0's of the computer's physical
manifestation are voltages, magnetic fields, air pressure, water flow, or war
widows holding pieces of paper. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
<blockquote>
The operation of any machine one could invent comes down to
the physics and math that govern its behaviour.
</blockquote>
Started off ok... but as soon as you threw math into it your sentence became
meaningless.
Math cannot govern. It can describe. The cog wheel is a physical object. No math
about it. Physics, yes. It has mass, physical structure.
But no math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jim Olsen on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
While "it's all math", it's math in different ways.
When one claims
an invention in electronics, say in a computer that's making
a calculation, the
electronic components operate in
ways that can be precisely described by
mathematical formulae. However,
the actual operation is due to physical
movement of electrons and variations
in electromagnetic fields. The math is a
model of this, but the model is not
the reality.
When one claims an
invention in a computer making a particular calculation,
the math IS the
reality. The electrons
and electromagnetic fields are still doing their jobs,
but the way they operate
is in no way fundamental to the calculation.
Therefore, an invention that can
be implemented on a general-purpose computer
is pure mathematics and
should not be patentable.
---
Jim ---
Success in crime always invites to worse deeds. - Lord Coke [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
The processor itself is a physical thing that has a multitude of applied
patentable ideas embedded in it. It's purpose is to interpret (or execute if you
prefer) a codified set of instructions given to it by it's supporting
infrastructure. The code it allows these instructions to be written in is
extremely simple and consists of elementary mathematics and logic.
The set of codified instructions is what we call software and is by definition
the "data" that acts as the input to the processor causing it to
generate, in the absense of external inputs, wholly predictable output. I'm not
saying this prediction is easy...
So the processor can only do simple maths and the input data describes the way
in which we wish it to do complex things by multiple repetition of this simple
maths. Everything it does is, however, exactly that - multiple repetitions of
simple maths.
Any combination of simple maths is more maths. And in fact any maths is a
combination of simple maths - even if sometimes the underlying simple maths is
rather well hidden.
This is not patentable by definition of patentable.
jrw
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
