You posit a computer language algorithm that symbolises abacus
beads in a frame
and the arithmetic logic employed in using
it.
Pardon the misunderstanding.
I propose the
abacus to be "computer hardware", and the software to be "bead movement
instructions written on paper".
Using this analogy, a lot of the complex
and irrelevant machine and software layers can be ignored and we can examine
more carefully what software exactly is and how it works.
I propose that
the operator of the abacus take on the responsibilities of loading instructions
(reading the paper), and executing them (manipulating the beads). In that way
we have a complete computer system, A User, Hardware (the abacus), and software
(the instructions on paper).
I then go on to stretch the software patent
argument claiming that a software patent could apply to the abacus instruction.
But I point out obvious fallacies, namely the presumption that the operator of
the abacus plays a central role in in making the software a useful part of his
reality.
Then I go on to point out that in a modern computer, that central
role has been incorporated into the computer design. Now the presumptions have
changed, that the algorithm no longer depends on the operator of a computer,
that however is debatable because the operator still needs to turn the computer
on and still needs to execute the program.
That additional issue of whether
the computer can really execute anything without the aid of the operator is
central because software patents can't be infringed upon if the infringing
characteristics don't "manifest" themselves in the computer. I point out that
courts presume infringement only based on the information that software with
infringing characteristics is available. I suggest that both by the willful
acts of the user and the decisions of the software writer are also enjoined in
presumptions.
And lastly, is suggested that these presumptions be revisited
as a possible remedy to the software patent fiasco that is occurring.
My
discussions with OP are related to my own presumption in the idea I presented as
they related to the concepts of execution of software and the implications of
the underlying mathematics, and semantics, and the now useful application of
what is otherwise mathematics (unpatentable).
I hope that helps. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
