|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
Logical engineering is math!
Whether you understand it or not doesn't matter.
Try to take a step beyond Aristotle and Pliny the Elder on whose book-learning
lawyers rely.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
I always thought a patent was granted for some sort of 'thing' that actually did
something useful. A machine can be one example of this 'thing' that one can
patent but software itself, by itself, can do nothing.
As such, software needs some form of machine to read the language containing the
instructions or algorithms expressed within. That is, software is a form of
expression just like a novel. And just like a novel can do nothing itself but
sit on a shelf.
Though a general purpose computer can 'read' the software novel and follow the
algorithms contained within, this, in my opinion, does not transform the general
purpose computer in any meaningful way that deserves monopoly protection.
Just like writing a novel, the works that underpin ones 'software writing style'
are protected via copyright yet the underlying principles expressed in
algorithms themselves should not be granted further monopoly protection as
afforded via any class of patent.
Now i don't know what (software) patents have been granted in the past 20 years
but imaging trying to program any software of worth if someone has been granted
a patent on, for example, the obvious principles of a linked list.
When imagining such a world where such a linked list patent exists, consider how
much effort is subsequently spent in actually writing code verses the time spent
talking to some legal department to determine the risk of being called up for
patent infringement. Now consider the idea that patents are meant to encourage
development while working out how to actually code anything meaningful.
For me, a world where software patents make sense can only exist if congress
intended the area where development is encouraged to be firmly in the area of
the legal profession and the courts. <sarcasm> If this is indeed what
congresses intended then they have created a mighty economic engines that will
drive prosperity and wealth for one and all (within the USTPO and all the
lawyers and courts that deal with such patent issues). The US will develop the
best patent lawyers money can buy. </sarcasm>.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
| You seem to be confusing "math" with mere "arithmetic".
You may have used some
arithmetic at various points in your programs, but every line of code was
actually a line of mathematics.
Every time you write an if-then statement or
a for-loop or anything else, it literally means a mathematical function taking
in certain numbers which are computed into a different set of numbers. The
if-then text or for-loop text is merely a translation designed to make it more
easily readable by people. A computer computes. A program is nothing but a
specific mathematical computation to be preformed. Every line of code represents
a particular mathematical computation. High level programming languages merely
hide the numbers and math operations under the hood, to make it easier for
programmers to write the huge and detailed math that the code represents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
Well, lets just say that - when you get down to fundamentals - the philosophers
can't make up their mind whether maths is a subset of logic, or logic is a
subset of maths, or indeed whether logic and maths are the same thing.
So if what you did was logical, then it obviously was mathematical!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
You can't patent a novel, can you? Yet
you compare it to writing software. And
you are right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 04:35 AM EDT |
I have valued the discussion of whether logic is the foundation of math or
whether they are independent sciences, but I want to explore what applied logic
is as though it were an independent issue.
If you have an idea for a
bit of a hardware function in your mind which can be implemented in part by
executing software on a computer, then you need to apply the logic of what the
hardware does to the writing of the software algorithms to deliver the hardware
functions.
Just to trivialise the issue, you cannot put those logical
thoughts about the engineering into a box and show them to people. They are
abstract ideas and are not patentable subject matter.
To get to
patentable engineered inventions partly implemented by a computer, the logic has
to be expressed in mathematical algorithms using a computer
language.
Let's start with applied logic which is completely
implemented as a math algorithm on a computer. Following my previous... er...
logic, that is abstract ideas expressed as a math algorithm. Even if it is not
math, logic is abstract ideas and is not patentable subject matter. The logic
expressed as a math algorithm is similarly not patentable subject matter. By
this logic, no invention that is wholly 'engineered' as a software program on a
general purpose computing device is patentable subject matter.
From
Gottschalk v. Benson which was an algorithm for binary to BCD
conversion:The claims were not limited to any particular art or
technology, to any particular apparatus or machinery, or to any particular end
use. They purported to cover any use of the claimed method in a general-purpose
digital computer of any type.
Benson was about a particular
algorithm. If every program is logic (abstract ideas) expressed in a math
algorithm to be executed by a general purpose computer processor then it is not
patentable subject matter. That is not to say that a great deal of engineering
skill is not required to write the program.
When the engineering logic
is partly implemented in software and partly in external hardware, then more
consideration is required. I won't bore you with the legal citations and will
limit myself to the example of a novel auto gearbox.
If the chosen
implementation is electro-mechanical, then the patent is on the arrangement of
gears, actuators, clutches and the control mechanism. The invention is the
arrangement of the components and there may be some novel components that
warrant a patent in their own right. The application of the engineering logic is
the invention. The engineering logic is abstract ideas.
You can replace
the control mechanism with a computer (a microcontroller) that electrically
interfaces with the actuators. What is patentable is the whole device and not
the components. If the original electro-mechanical control mechanism was
patentable in its own right then it would be the precise control function that
would be patented.
Doing the precise control function logic with a
computer should be equally patentable. The software/software function would not
be patentable, only the computer/electrical interface/controlling function
combination. Most automatic gearbox control mechanisms will not be any more
patentable than the gears they manipulate so that even the special purpose
computer assembly would be the patent equivalent of a standard nut or
bolt.
Although the gearbox is controlled by a microcontroller, the
magic is achieved by measuring the gear speeds and electro-mechanically
operating the levers The actual software in the microcontroller is irrelevant to
the functions claimed for the invention.
All that is important is to
state what functions related to engine speed, output shaft speed, engine power
and similar aspects of the design are carried out by the software.
It
is irrelevant what software language is used to program the microcontroller and
what software algorithms or functions are used.
If the same algorithms
and functions are used with some other gearbox, then the other gearbox only
infringes if the inventive concept in the patent is also used. The inventive
concept is not in the software functions carried out by the software, but is in
the functions of the whole gearbox.
If a completely new software
algorithm was used with the unpatentable arrangement of gears and actuators
(standard components in a standard configuration and therefore prior art) then
the patent owner would be furious that a change of processor, software, or
software language allowed someone to sidestep his patent.
The converse
is that the patent owner has no right to use the patent to limit the use of the
software in any way. The only protection he is entitled to, under the law, is to
protect the copyright. Anyone can avoid copyright infringement by deducing the
engineering logic (or getting it from the patent - allegedly) and writing a new
algorithm.
I have repeated myself to reinforce that only the realised
whole invention is permitted patent protection. The engineering logic and the
software are not patentable subject matter.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
So you wrote and used a few programs and that didnt 'feel' like math to you.
That doesnt mean anything. The logical proof is before you, read it and
understand. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
