|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
It's not that simple.
If you think it's all "just math" then give me the password and user
identifier to your banking website.
I assume you have a bill paying service? Most folks do nowadays.
I will make a quick and practical demonstration that software is more than
"just math" and I will do so without as much as the issuing of any
tangible, paper check.
How much is in your account right now?
The problem here is that computers are eventually tied to the real world. They
just don't sit in the corner, generating tables of logarithms.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- So, how to get our thoughts into an amicus brief? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- So, how to get our thoughts into an amicus brief? - Authored by: darrellb on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- gene? - Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- So, how to get our thoughts into an amicus brief? - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- So, how to get our thoughts into an amicus brief? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- It's just math. I don't have time to debate idiots. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:08 AM EDT
- Even if it is all just math... - Authored by: Ribbit on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 05:38 AM EDT
- So, how to get our thoughts into an amicus brief? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
It is a matter of fact, not refutable or ignorable by the courts, that
software
is pure mathematics.
I don't think this has actually been
proven. At least I've never seen a proof. Most people point to a Turing
Machine
and claim that's good enough. Turing Machines don't include things like
network, hard disks, keyboards, and displays. Even the random number generators
built into modern CPUs violate the Turing model (at least they do if they are
real random number generators.)
The key thing all of these things
introduce into the equation is all sorts of unpredictability. Even something as
simple as accessing a hard drive has to take into account effects of where the
platter is rotationally, how long it takes the hard drives computer to respond
to a command and so on.
Networks need to take into account misdirected
packets, corrupted packets, and so on as well.
I think it is possible
to build a mathematical model that encompasses all of this, I've just never seen
one. So if you really want to show all software is math, build a model that
includes all of the above. I think something like a Turing Machine with ports
that connect it to other Turing machines, or people, might be enough. They key
thing to encompass is all the randomness and things that could go wrong.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not Quite - Authored by: StormReaver on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Not Quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Real computers : Turing machine - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Not Quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Not Quite - random generators - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT
- The answer is ... a Turing Machine - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- Not Quite - Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Not Quite - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- I said software, not computers. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
Preface - go to:
Answerin
g Gene Quinn, Patent
Attorney - Updated
Friday, November 14 2008 @
09:04 PM EST
To read comments to this article, go
here
Then, consider:
1st - the court must see this Digital 101 class
video...
Brian Cantwell Smith (C-SPAN) Library of Congress...
DIGITAL FUTURE: MEANING OF
DIGITAL
Mr. Smith combines degrees in computer science and
philosophy and is an expert on the interdisciplinary
convergence brought about
by digitization. His lecture,
titled "And Is All This Stuff Really Digital
After All?"
explored the meaning and notion of "digital" and argued the
term
was often a misnomer, referring to delivery mechanisms
rather than the
information itself. Mr. Smith was the author
of On the Origin of Objects,
published by Bradford Books.
The series "Managing Knowledge and Creativity in a
Digital
Context" examined how the digital age was changing the most
basic ways
information is organized and classified. The goal
was to educate the public on
what the digital age meant to
their lives. This event took place in the Mumford
Room in
the Library of Congress Madison Building. The featured
speaker was
followed by a panel discussion, and a question
and answer session with the
audience at the venue, as well
as C-SPAN television viewers who submitted
questions by
electronic mail.
HERE
are some
very interesting transcript excerpts that were posted in
former
related Groklaw comment)
Let me add this quote found at 1:08:00 point
(here is an
example of where he gets into the answer to an interesting
question - related to patents for sure, as then we ask where
is the real
invention)?
(not exact, but close to exact quote):
"I have been
searching for what is special about
computers...
I will announce this...
THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THEM!
You have been misled."
(go to that point and the excerpt points in the above link
for a very
interesting insight of this wonderful talk).
All JUDGES and LAWYERS should
view this video, before they
even
think any more about what is a computer is,
or is not... as,
it will
present them with more questions that they must ask,
where
they will end up at one final resting place called
MATH.
Also, Of interest (brought forward from previous Groklaw
comment):
So, start here, and end at all the other comments
above and
below:
The chip design dictates what software can run
(so by design,
software is obvious). - Authored by:
Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2008 @
04:21 PM EDT
" Simply put ---> Digital is pure trickery of the highest
form.
Those who perform magic can understand this concept quickly.
For
others, it might take until the next generation (who
will never need to talk of
the internet like they were full
pipes), to understand. Hopefully, in the
future, the next
generations will not laugh too hard at us, our lawyer, and
our judges. The courts could prevent this future laughing
now. We shall see
what the next level of the court can see
the forest thru the trees and what
they do with with this
ruling next? Will they show their age (and be tricked by
the
digital myth), or will they show some wisdom?
We can only ask this: Why
is stuff that is digital
(represented by software) so obvious? Why are so many
tricked into thinking computers and software are some kind
of NEW INVENTION
(when it is trickery)? Yep - digital
stuff... it is pure magic (however at the
same time, what
computers do... is not new, and is indeed obvious).
Why?
Because! Remember it is all math, and math is not patentable
at all!
Yep - All that software does it take analog actions,
covert them to a math
process involving BINARY digital code
to run on a certain chip (as chips get
faster we get results
faster), then outputs again (sooner than if done by
analog
but the result is the same). In a digital output (that is
usable in
only an analog representation) the input, now
output, is again useful for
humans (good only because what
we did is done faster). So, what is done by the
computer, is
not different from the original human action (analog) in the
first place, it just is done quicker!
READ THE REST OF THE LINK ABOVE and
the links to that to get
a full reading as to the WHY...
Smoke signals and
Drumming on Logs, was binary! - Authored by: Anonymous
on Saturday,
November 01 2008 @ 09:26 AM EDT
If you are looking for prior art for any patent
on the
Method and Concept of "any digital communications patent at
all" then
look no further than primitive communication. It
was all Binary then. What is
different today? Well, what is
different is that we use today, chips and
electronics - aka
the real invention. No new CONCEPT at all. No new Method at
all. Encryption, why that is just as old as sending messages
either written or
by changing the secret code of the digital
binary smoke signal, to a new way to
scramble the message.
Nothing NEW. Nothing magical. Prior art is thousands of
years old.
So, these judges, need to understand what computing
really
is, and either take a computing 101 course in college, AND
see the
video linked to above...!
Where they can see that digital is a myth
in the middle, and
that the software is only subject to copyright, and the
hardware is where the patents should exist, period.
Or else, if
they don't understand, then as Brian Cantwell
Smith also said (something like
this" - "We might have
to wait for another generation to grow up with them,
before
we as a society, understand"?
What is the difference between a
discovery, and an
invention? What is the Myth, what is the Magic (that
current judges, lawyers, and USPTO examiners are all being
fooled by)?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
>b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a
computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is
claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times
be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
Proposed answer: there is no way that a patent, any patent, can be claimed on a
generic storage medium. The very presence of the patent itself on a CD would
violate the patent! -- which is nonsense.
However, if a patent is claimed that can be totally contained on a storage
medium--then the "invention" is by definition not patentable. THE VERY
PRESENCE OF A "STORAGE MEDIUM" claim PROVES UNPATENTABILITY.
This is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, which said that software
(e.g., on a CD) NOT installed on a computer, did not infringe. It could not
infringe before it was installed on a computer.
Now, at what point does it begin to infringe? Is it when the CD is inserted into
the computer's coffee-cup tray? Is it when the data is copied to hard disk? Is
it the point where the entirety of the data is present in RAM (which is
"NOT even FIXED in a TANGIBLE MEDIUM")?
When you attempt to answer this question, bear in mind that a program can be
executed without ANY of the above EVER happening. And, additionally, the essence
of patents is, they are freely distributable. WHEREVER the data describing the
patent is COPIED, there is no violation.
It is only when the patent is actually USED that there is a violation. And in a
computer, the ONLY non-insane meaning of "use" would be
"EXECUTION" of the program. Everything else, up to that point, is
constitutionally-approved propagation of the ideas in the patent.
Of course, we still get back to the separate point of asking what a computer
does by executing a program, that isn't hardware and isn't math (which I would
answer "nothing" for some of the many reasons given here.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
If there is no physical embodiment of the patent, it shouldn't be patentable. I
think that sums it up, but I leave it open for discussion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
