No. This doesn't happen during the execution of the program.
Math is never transformed into electrons. This is like saying a legal
brief is transformed into a stack of paper covered with ink at the time of
printing. The semantical relationship goes the other way round. The symbols
convey the meanings. The meanings is not transformed into
symbols.
The instructions in software do alter a computer
machine states held in its memory arrays that are constantly being updated and
processed. That's part of the math of how a computer system works at a very
basic and fundamental level. I believe that is the meaning you should have
taken. While you could say that voltages in a computer memory array are
represented by electrons... That's the equivalent argument. It's completely
out of context to interpret theoretical mathematical models and some bridge into
the world of subatomic particles. We both agree that sort of "quantum" leap is
imaginary.
Semantics is not an action of the computer. It is
an operation of knowledge. The reader knows the language and can recognize
meanings into the symbols. This is true for a written brief. This is true for
data in a computer.
Agreed. The computer does not perform
operations of knowledge. Only logical operations that have been programmed
either as part of its hardware design or as part of the software model being
processed. All operations of knowledge related to any meaning data in a
computer may have is done by the operator and depends greatly on the way the
computer presents its actual state. If the computer has any notion of semantic
knowledge, perhaps that knowledge is merely present as a result of its design
that is backed by mathematical models.
Do you know Chinese?
Or Russian? Take a foreign language. Imagine you are given a computer using an
unknown user interface in that foreign language. You won't understand a single
thing about the data. You don't know the language. But someone with knowledge of
the language will use the computer just fine. Semantics is a function of the
user's knowledge.
You are mistaken here. I may have a
chance to monkey with the system and patterns inherent to the fundamental design
of the computer, which are perfectly understandable to anyone, would be clear.
I press a key and a symbol (of some sort) appears on screen. I don't need to
know the language to made determinations about some aspects of the machine.
Certainly, however my understanding would not be that of written words and
sentences. And certainly if any patent may cover aspects of the machine as I
observe, they wouldn't have any value since this machine does not offer me any
real benefits.
If you where to be placed in front of the control panel
at a nuclear power plant, while you don't understand what everything means or
how it's related, you can still make determinations about certain components,
coolant pressures, core temperatures and whatnot. The presentation of
information would still be complete but the gap of knowledge you posses to
understand it's completeness would pose an obstacle, but the information and
presentment would not be completely alien.
Semantics is not
a physical component of a machine. By that logic the meaning of a legal brief
would improve a stack of paper covered with ink. If we consider the document as
a whole the meaning is an improvement to an article of manufacture. This type of
argument could be used to patent any type of contents stored on every type of
physical supports.
Your argument is tantamount to say that contents is
something physical which should be patentable because it improves how the user
experiences the physical device.
Does a legal brief not
represent a higher level of understanding of a stack of papers covered with ink?
For a child, it's a stack of papers covered in ink. And it certainly is also
that same thing for a lawyer, except that the lawyer has an experience where
that ink has more meaning. The paper continues to be the paper, the ink
continues to be ink any improvement in the meanings gained by semantics are a
result of the lawyers specific interpretations (operator experience). Certainly
an enhancement in experience where a computer system presenting it's exact state
of pixel colors, dependent on memory arrays that are manipulated by sequences of
mathematical representations, has more value to a operator than the computer
itself. That's why patents fundamentally make sense.
Software is more
than written texts or a photo. It represents the ability to enhance a users
ability to be productive, it's a tool. While software is static, it exhibits
enough dynamism to become part of an intelligent process the user can benefit
from. So in that way, your argument that computer software only results in
"content" is flawed, software can represent a tool that may manipulate
information in a way that the operator may have difficulty in doing only with
his god-given mental faculties.
Mathematics exists not for the mere
existence of itself, but to enhance humanity. If that enhancement can be
attributed to some idea that can be implemented in a machine where the work of
one individual or group can enhance that of another, why not be able to patent
that?
The problem with software patents is not the fundamentals or idea
of the patent itself, it's the human aspect that seeks to utilize the mechanisms
as a means to take competitive advantage in a way that harms innovative efforts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
