|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
This is not an argument that software is not math. This is an argument that math
is patentable when it gives a useful result.
I say a manipulation of symbols is an abstract idea no matter which non
mathematical meaning you give to the symbols. It is an abstract idea even when
the meaning of th symbols is useful. And reducing the number of symbols required
to store a video file is a manipulation of symbols whose meaning is a video.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 06:23 AM EDT |
The 'images' you discuss are symbolic representations of an image with the
symbols stored in memory or in a file. An image has to be visible for it to be
an image. Compressing an image makes it look smaller.
It is really useful in low capacity computers to reduce the symbolic binary
representation of sound in a file to a symbolic representation of reduced memory
requirement. That is a mathematical manipulation of a file of symbols by making
use of the laws of nature related to human hearing.
It's none patentable subject matter because it uses both math and the laws of
nature. So is the manipulation of a file of symbols representing a real-world
image.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
"However that same image occupying less disk space is an actual
benefit."
Using addition to convert the numbers 20, 80, 100, into the sum 200 will also
occupy less disk space which is an actual benefit. However that does not make
addition patentable.
An image compression algorithm is nothing but math taking one number (or
sequence of numbers) and converting it into another number (or sequence of
numbers). And yes *storing a shorter number* (or fewer numbers) on a disk takes
less space.
Yes, math is extremely useful. Yes, using math is often beneficial. However you
appear to be confused on what the law says. You appear to have the impression
that anything which is USEFUL is patentable. If you are arguing that anything
which is USEFUL IS THEREFORE PATENTABLE, then you are wrong as a matter of law.
You are arguing that addition is patentable because sometimes it is useful to
store a sum on a disk.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
"Maybe you could try an argument that shows more generosity to the merits
of the arguments presented."
The US Supreme Court has stated "A mathematical formula as such is not
accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment. Similarly, insignificant postsolution activity will
not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process" and that
a claim must be "examined to determine whether it discloses 'some other
inventive concept'". The court was also quite specific that "algorithm
is treated for 101 purposes as though it were a familiar part of the prior
art".
I am not going to give any "merit" to an argument which ignores or
denies US Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
Furthermore any professor of Computer Science will tell you that software is
nothing other than an algorithm. Software is nothing more than a fancy form of
writing out mathematical computation. No, I am not going to give any 'merit' to
any argument which ignores or denies fundamental facts.
"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."
What an ironic comment. That's a relatively accurate description of the
pro-software patent position, and it's quite comical how you prove my point by
getting my argument backwards. Software cannot produce anything except a
numerical result, and it is impossible to eat a number no matter how much you
wish or imagine it to be a ham sandwich. You can invent a computer monitor and
display that number as an image that looks like a ham sandwich, but that doesn't
make the math or the numbers patentable. You could even invent and patent a
robot and send the robot numbers triggering it to make a real ham sandwich, but
that doesn't make the math or the numbers patentable. You could even invent and
patent a Star-Trek replicator, and you could send it number that triggers it to
make an actual ham sandwich, but that doesn't make the math or the number
patentable.
Math is useful. Numbers are useful. Algorithms are useful. However the US
Supreme Court has stated that, as a matter of law, math and numbers and
algorithms are not patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
