|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
So you don't view software and the logic it may contain to modify machine
characteristics when it is executed. You don't see how such aspects of
software, even if it is just contents, makes such content distinct or special.
Interesting, I'll have to remark that it's a question of how we choose to view
the issue(s). Perhaps the viewpoint I've been using that support my idea of how
software patents are more than just algorithms/mathematics and a component of
the machine.
I guess that is the difference between your view and mine.
I'll try to put it another way for whatever good it may do. If you delete a GIF
or a JPG stored within a computer system, the system will continue with the same
characteristics overall. The only deviation you would expect would be the
missing image as it would otherwise appear in its prior positions. Overall, the
machine will continue to function as it did before.
If you delete a program or library containing software logic, it will affect the
machine characteristics in a way that alters the way it functions. It may even
stop functioning all together.
To argue that content is content and the machine is the machine is to claim that
the machine is only a composite of its parts. On the other hand, if you
understand software plays a special role as computer contents, you may see the
machine to be more than just the sum of its parts.
The analogy in a real-world machine to removing a software component in a
computer would be, remove the bucket on a front-end loader. The machine will
lose an aspect of its usefulness or definition. Furthermore, one could argue
that it's no longer a front-end loader, but a tractor.
Your position seems to be that the dirt in the bucket, fuel, oil or any other
consumable in/on the loader is equivalent to its components. While I don't
disagree that some those consumables are critical for the utility of the
machine, even in their absence the machine continues to be the same machine.
PS I know that regardless of any affirmation I may make about which anonymous
responses are mine, you will continue to have your doubts. However I'll affirm
that on two occasions on one or two of the other sub-threads below, I was graced
by an anonymous response I believed to be you; the remarks where consistent the
ideas you have been making. If you open a part 2 for these computation theory
exploration, I'll certainly open an account for my responses. For now, though I
think our conversation is pretty much concluded. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
