A method for compressing an image *is* math. Using a computer to
compute that
math will actually produce a compressed image. Any software to
compress an image
or anything else, *is* math, is *not* and invention, and is
*not* a valid
patent.
However that same image occupying
less disk space is an actual benefit. The result is apparently
real.
You certainly can write some math *describing* a ham
sandwich making method, but
using a computer to compute that math will *not*
actually get you a ham
sandwich. A method to make a ham sandwich is a physical
process, it is *not*
math, and it *is* patentable. *Describing* that method with
math is a fruitless
exercise, and it is a fruitless
argument.
Your mathematical model describing a ham sandwich
may be executed by a computer to give you calorie consumption and energy
expenditure as well as other biologically simulated conclusions associated with
your mathematical model of the ham sandwich. Those could be described as actual
results of the model that some people could want and benefit from.
<shrug/> It may even a bit of software a company might
patent.
Clearly you want to present a case that software should not be
patentable because you feel strongly about this issue. Maybe you could try an
argument that shows more generosity to the merits of the arguments presented.
Your arguments are the equivalent to claiming you can really eat a computer made
ham sandwich because you saw someone ask for tea to a computer in a star trek
episode. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|