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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Software>math | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
so is everything else
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT
The operation of any machine one could invent comes down to
the physics and math that govern its behaviour. Maybe the
design comes down to choosing the type and arrangement of
elements which are purely physics, logic and and math based
in nature (and individually non patentable).

IIRC a collection of non patentable elements does not become
patentable by increasing size and complexity, but this seems
to be the accepted norm for non-software patents.

Perhaps there's a difference with the results of the
operation being purely abstract with computing algorithms,
and therefore being an abstract idea and process from start
to finish - unless you tack on an output device to the
patented invention, which is not part of the invention, but
is part of the patent. I'm not sure what the legal
implications of that are.


I disagree with software patents (or many issued patents
for that matter), I'm just trying to explore the differences
between patent types and eligibility.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Software=math
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
Not to be overly picky, although really I am, not all
computers use 2's complement arithmetic.
The real functions of a CPU are add, load, store, negate,
shift/rotate, and/or/xor. Although you could further argue
that in reality everything a CPU does is really a NAND (not
and) operation, as all logic circuits can be built solely with
the proper combination of NAND gates. :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Software=math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT
    • Even then - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
      • Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
        • Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
          • Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
        • Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
  • Software=math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Software>math
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
I agree that math concepts shouldn't be patented. But saying that software
shouldn't be patented because it's the same as math is like saying that real
physical devices (such as a smartphones and airplanes) shouldn't be patented
because they're the same as molecules and atoms.

Molecules and atoms are used and arranged in a specific way to implement real
physical things just as math is used and arranged in a specific way to implement
algorithms. If someone figures out a new way to solve a problem by, for
example, developing an algorithm that is 1000% more efficient than any previous
algorithm that solves the same problem, then it should be possible to patent
that new algorithm (but not the underlying math concepts).

[ 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 )