|
Authored by: designerfx on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
post corrections here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- corrections thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
- Words missing in last para of footnotes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- It analogous to -> It is analogous to - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:08 AM EDT
- The text of program implemented : program->a program [N/T] - Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- If we use a pencil they are marks of lead on paper. - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT
- The semantics of some programming languages has been -> have been - Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- there is in mathematics --> there are in mathematics - Authored by: grokpara on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 04:22 AM EDT
- On cannot ---> One cannot (N/T) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- read the bits -> know what the bits mean - Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- 0.5V-->5V, 0,35V-->3.5V - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- Missing html entities - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Bits are copyrightable - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- rest mass - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- rest mass - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- rest mass - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- rest mass - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:26 AM EDT
- how does a computer carries -> how does a computer carry - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- An algorithm must be machine executable. - Authored by: pcrooker on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- corrections thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- Formulae and algorithms - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- phenomenons -> phenomena - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- "...writing the symbols." > '...representing the symbols.' - Authored by: Tinstaafl on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- 0.5V -> 5.0V, 0.35V -> 3.5V - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT
|
Authored by: designerfx on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
off topic comments here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple Maps Too Accurate - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: TerryC on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 05:00 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: hairbear on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: albert on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- ...but latterly in DC motor control... - Authored by: artp on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- Apple Sued for Patent Infringement (LED Lighting) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:41 AM EDT
- Shouldn't these be posted in Newspicks? n/t - Authored by: albert on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- Maybe! - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT
- Maybe! - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- The Death of Free Speech - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT
- Workers in Chinese factory reveal ‘life of hell’ producing iPhone 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Alert: Live now Skydiver Felix Baumgartner soon to jump - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- NVIDIA wants to remove GPL marker from Linux interface - Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Well it is a point of view. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:37 AM EDT
- Well, you can tell the good posts by the number of trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- Yep - n/t - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 01:09 AM EDT
- Remember "Securitization"? - as in BOOM goes the economy? Now howz about we do it with cancer ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- Apple/Samsung UK appeal - Authored by: jmc on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- ACTA is back - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Planet with four suns discovered by volunteers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT
- Ada Lovelace v. Marie Curie = A Day Worth Celebrating - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 06:13 AM EDT
- Game of Life with floating point operations .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT
- Clint Eastwood Settles Legal Dispute Over Chair (No, Not That Chair) - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- European Parliament Committee Calls For Creation Without Copyright To Become EU Policy - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
Will you be filing this as a brief? Because you really should, the judges
need to see this.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
Please put the title of the newpick as your title.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple Sued for LED Lighting Found in iPad 3 & MacBook Pro: With a computer/ with an LED - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Curioser and Curioser - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Rubbish - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:36 PM EDT
- Rubbish, indeed! - Authored by: albert on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Rubbish - Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- Rubbish - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- Apple Sued for LED Lighting Found in iPad 3 & MacBook Pro: With a computer/ with an LED - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for LED Lighting Found in iPad 3 & MacBook Pro: With a computer/ with an LED - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT
- Apple Sued for LED Lighting Found in iPad 3 & MacBook Pro: With a computer/ with an LED - Authored by: albert on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- Apple Sued for LED Lighting Found in iPad 3 & MacBook Pro: With a computer/ with an LED - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Obvious and _necessary_ - Authored by: myNym on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT
- what can Google do proactively to prevent antitrust suit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- Boy, if I were an attorney - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Rupert Murdoch calls phone-hacking campaigners 'scumbag celebrities' - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- Indie film legend accuses Apple, Google of Web piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT
- Google Vs. Vringo - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- FTC Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
Please place your transcriptions here.
Those of you who have been doing it know the drill. Anyone else interested can
click the Comes v. MS link at the top of the page.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
It does not matter what mathematicians, software engineers, or programmers
define as "mathematics" it only matters what Judges or Legislators
define as "mathematics".
Additionally I think but cannot be sure that the case law generally refers to
"algorithms" or "equations" as legally defined, not
"mathematics" in general.
Finally this whole line of reasoning seems to be advancing a technical(or
theological) argument against a point of public policy which in our society
should be decided by the legislative branch of government.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
An algorithm must be machine executable. It must be the type of procedure
which could be executed by logic gates which may react only to voltages
representing symbols
This is your problem. I doubt any computer has
ever existed that consisted only of logic gates. I know modern computers have
resistors, capacitors, oscillators, fans, mechanical storage devices,
environmental sensors, keyboards, mice, monitors, Ethernet ports, etc. All of
these can and do impact calculations.
For example, one of the first
things you learn about Turing machines is that one Turing machine can emulate
two separate Turing machines. The problem is, those Turing machines are assumed
to stay in lock step. Two separate CPUs with two separate oscillators will
never stay in lock step, so you need a random factor for one CPU to emulate two.
Furthermore, the proof that one Turing machine is as good as two assumes that
there is no data corruption. In the real world, this isn't true
either.
If the goal is to argue that software that runs on real
hardware is mathematics, you're going to have to abandon Turing machines and
Turing computable and the definition of algorithm you learned in CS.
I
believe that a Turing machine with an oracle that provides a random symbol on
demand might be enough to model real hardware that doesn't interact with people.
I don't believe you can argue that software that interacts with people is
mathematics without arguing that people are mathematics. I could be wrong, it
might be possible to claim people are just another source of
entropy.
To switch to a Turing machine with a random oracle,
I think
you need to change your definition of algorithm to something like (I should do
this in TeX, but I'm way too rusty:)
Let S be a finite set of symbols. Let
X(S) be the set of all finite strings of symbols from S. An algorithm F is a
map F:X(S) x X(S) -> [0,1] such that for every a in X(S) Fa:X(s) -> [0,1]
with Fa(x) = F(a,x) is a probability distribution and there exists a Turing
computable function H: X(S) x X(S) -> X(S) and a probability distribution
G:X(S) -> [0,1] such that for every a,b in X(S) there is a c in X(s) with
G(c) = F(a,b) and H(c,a) = b.
Sorry about the run on, but math doesn't
lend itself to periods. At least it doesn't without typesetting. What all that
is trying to say is that there is a Turing machine that with the right random
input, it does what you want. The point of F is that the first argument is the
input, the second is the output and the results is the probability of getting
the given output from the given input. If you require the range of F to be {0,
1} then you should get the standard definition of algorithm.
Anything
that satisfies the above definition of algorithm is clearly math. The hard part
is to show that the above yields anything interesting. It's clearly more than
Turing computable because it can generate random numbers. I think this will
give you enough, but someone needs to check to make sure this definition of
algorithm is inclusive enough to eliminate most software patents.
None
of this is really new or hard. I would be stunned if there wasn't some mention
of this somewhere in the literature. It's possible the hard work has already
been done. Someone who can search the appropriate journals should do so. I
think the keywords Turing, random and oracle will get some good hits if you can
eliminate things related to the database company.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Pointless - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT
- What Does "Software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - Software Is Manipulation of Symbols ~ by PolR - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
- Software that runs on real computers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- What Does "Software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - Software Is Manipulation of Symbols ~ by PolR - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Software *treats* computers as composed purely of logic gates, inputs, outputs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- Very nice point - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Very nice point - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- patentable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 08:58 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- Another angle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT
- What is math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- This is your problem. You don't seem to understand computer design. - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
There are good ideas in here, but most lawyers will not pay
attention because the writing is not structured in a way
that they can follow.
1. Give an outline of your argument. This is part 1,
apparently. Why is it divided into two parts? What will be
in part 2? For that matter, what do you consider the most
important conclusion of part 1?
1a. Tell 'em what you're gonna say, then say it, then tell
'em what you said. Don't just start talking about
mathematical utterances without explaining why a lawyer
should care. And don't assume that when a reader reached
the end of the page they understood what the main conclusion
should be. Tell them again.
2. Complete your argument. Engineers often respond to a
question by giving conclusive evidence but fail to draw a
conclusion. Asked "what is the capacity of this hard drive?"
they may say, "It's a Model 1234 from IBM", which is correct
but not sufficiently helpful - sure, that's enough
information with which to obtain the desired answer (e.g.,
from Google) but if you are being asked a particular
question, give the answer to that question. Once you
identify the question you're trying to answer (maybe it's
"what is a test that judges could apply to exclude software
from patentability that would be mathematically correct"),
you can organize your writing around giving a clear answer
to that question.
3. Don't bury the lede. The paragraph where you suggest a
new test (or two) is underneath the heading "A remark on
algorithms and abstract ideas." Headings are supposed to
help the reader follow the argument, not to hide the main
idea!
4. Give examples and anticipate counterarguments. Maybe
this will be in your part two, but let's say we adopt your
test - what result do we get if the software is implemented
as a hardware circuit instead?
Long tangent related to number 4:
I think if it uses memory at all, then it is "writing
symbols" by your definition, so not patentable. Is that a
correct interpretation of your test, and if so, is that a
desirable result?
(I believe it's possible to implement a calculation
without using memory. I'd guess I/O buffers don't count,
or the result would be that almost nothing digital is
patentable even if everything is implemented in hardware.
In any case, you could implement a special-purpose
calculator in hardware (maybe analog hardware) without
buffering the I/O. Would such a piece of hardware be non-
algorithmic and therefore patentable? Example: Enigma
machine. The intended use is to manipulate symbols, but is
that what the Enigma machine itself does?)
5. Keep it simple. My tangent to number 4 probably doesn't
belong in this piece, but would be good for a follow-up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
I agree with previous commenters that this is pure ontology. It will convince
neither judges nor even programmers. Worse, it looks daunting a read; I couldn't
even reach halfway through.
It would be so much easier to point out that
all software is recursively definable functions, as explained in the Church-Turing
thesis. Or that it can be expanded into boolean circuits. This
way even the intellectually challenged would have to recognize this is
mathematics. And they wouldn't even have to read anything, since not only can
the above be illustrated to neophytes with Powerpoint crayons, but it's been
extensively researched by illustrious mathematicians (even they might know, such
as Alan Turing) since even before computers existed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:46 AM EDT |
As someone who spent a third of his long career in engineering and
who has
obtained an advanced degree in that field, and who has also spent
two-thirds of
his career in the patent field, I think I am qualified and entitled
to
ask:
Why is it that the arguments presented in this article sound so much
like this to me?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
Neither is patentable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 05:54 AM EDT |
Software is not mathematics.
Mathematics itself is a broad discipline from pure mathematics concenred with
the logical consequences derivable from sets of axioms to applied mathematics
concerned with how the results and methods of pure mathematics can be applied to
praticcal problems.
Software can to an extent be analysed by mathematics and all software depends on
algorithms, often trivial obvious algorithms, which are a part of applied
mathematics but software itself is more than this.
There is a massive freedom in how software is structured and how it performs
functions. The design of software is critical and this design is not principally
concerned with algorithmic concerns but how to make the software easy to
understand, how to make it easy to extend and how to manage the complexity
inherent in whatever task is being performed. Software engineering is a
massively practical and creative disciplince with only occasional need for
significant mathematical skills.
A good example of the distinction is work I did medical imaging. At the time
some complex front end signal processing was performed by banks of laser trimmed
matched analog electronics. This was expensive. I derived some mathematical
relations that made it possible to achieve a similar or better result digitally
with the practical componenst available at the time. This is perhaps mathematics
but what is interesting is two years later working with another company I saw
they were using my idea to process signals but with no understanding at all of
the underlying maths. They had decided there must be a relationship between the
signals concerned and had simply measured it emprically and encoded it in look
up tables. They then implemented it in software. The real drive for the idea was
not the mathematics but the current state of electronics in terms of ADCs,
multipliers and the performance of low cost DSPs.
The point is that software is not mathematics but engineering. It is concerned
with solving practical problems and not concerned with formal logic or proofs
except as tools.
A second point is there are many routes to a solution and what drives the types
of solutions is the tehcnical and commercial environment more than the ability
of individial engineers or developers.
There is a real problem with patents especially SW patents in the US but the
problem is not because software is mathematics but because of the practical
consequences of the current system. The mathematical argument is false but in
any case has the character of relgious dogma. The exclusion of mathematics from
patentable material was surely itself based on a practical assesment of the
consequences.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT
- Software is not mathematics, but algorithms in software are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- I have not said the disciplines are the same - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Software is mathematics, you idiot. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:01 AM EDT
- So, what your saying is... - Authored by: hAckz0r on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Software IS mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Software is not mathematics - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
I read that in some of PolR's previous pieces. I was sure he would be right, but
I did not really get it.
A while ago I thought of a simple
demonstration of math being a manipulation of symbols. It's as easy as 1, 2,
3.
I start by counting up from zero:
zero
1
The
colour, red, 1
I
II
0100
The colour, green
six
.......
1000
The
initial numeric value is 0 and the math algorithm is to obtain the next numeric
value in the series by adding one, 1 or the colour brown.
Obviously,
trying to write counting on paper forces one to use symbols. The math algorithm
just becomes the manipulation of the symbols. Let's avoid all that confusing
symbolic stuff by actually uttering the math. Of course, my utterances are the
words in the English language that symbolise numeric values; one, two, three.
four, five, six, seven, eight. (Uhm... un, deux, trois... forget
it!)
It changes nothing. The stuff on paper is just another way of
uttering the math. It's the same with a calculator and a
computer.
Let's try PolR's suggestion of hiding the utterances of
counting in a computer so that we don't see or hear it.
Let
Count=0
Let Brown=1
Do Loop
Print Count
Let Count=Count plus
Brown
End Loop
If I really did not want to see what was happening
to my manipulation of symbols in the computer, I should not have printed out the
values of Count.
There must be an exception to the rule that every
processor instruction is an instruction to manipulate the symbols it loads from
memory. In fact, there isn't. The only things that the processor can get from
and put to memory is the binary symbols '0' and '1'. The only thing that the
processor can do is execute a symbol manipulation on the symbols it gets from
memory.
Even the loading and saving of symbols from and to memory is a
computer version of writing and rubbing out symbols on the paper tape of
Turing's hypothetical math machine.
In summary, math is the
manipulation of symbols. The computer processor is only capable of manipulating
symbols. Any software that is executed by a computer processor is only
manipulating symbols because that is all the processor can do. Ergo, software is
math.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
<blockquote>
3. The result of step 2 is the energy E.
</blockquote>
I believe this is usually referred as the "energy equivalent E",
rather than "the energy E". But I'm not sure of the current thought on
that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
The problem with with the "Software is Mathematics" argument
is that it is counter productive when it comes to arguing
against software patents. The reason is that patents are a
legal construct, and must therefore be countered in legal
terms, by comparing it with practice and limitation on
patentibility in other areas such as patents on hardware,
chemical and manufacturing processes, and accepted non-
patentability in other areas - eg. novels and other creative
content. The use of abstractness as a reason for non-
patentibility of software which was why software was not
patentable in the past also needs to be explained in clear
legal terms and resurrected to block patentibility of
software. The non-patentibility of scientific principles,
and the non-patentability of specifications which have
limited options, or are arbitrary and do not correspond to a
real optimum or benefit should also be emphasised.
I fear that introducing a new basis for patentability based
on the "Software is Mathematics" (which lawyers and the
public in general will not understand), will simply expand
the arugment for even wider patentability based on the fact
that because public key encryption patents have already been
granted, there is precedence for the patenting of
mathematics in certain contexts - at least that is how
lawyers will see it.
I think it is far more productive to explain things to
lawyers, law makers, and the public in terms of accepted
limits to patentability that they do understand from other
areas. For example, allowing patenting of novel plots is
absurd, so why is the analogy of this in software being
allowed. You can't patent a method of using fast
multiplication that involves looking up log tables, adding
the values and looking up anti-logs on paper, so why was
Intel granted a patent to use this on a computer. You need
to explain that for patents on alloys, you cannot be granted
a patent if you cannot show that the specific values or
ranges you are patenting are optimal in a stated way - so
for example you can't claim ownership of say steel-chrome
alloy specifications with say between 2% to 5% chrome and 1%
molybdenum just by quoting the percentages you wish to claim
- you need to identify the optimum values and explain
exactly how they are optimal. It is also not possible to
patent the use of things that have a limited number of
options - for example use of symbols, cyphers, names etc.
Why then is it possible to claim ownership for an arbitrary
range of parameters in the case of standards and protocols
required for interoperability simply by quoting a set of
parameters.
The reasons why we have patents should also be made clear in
the simplest terms - it isn't something given to us by god
or a natural right, but an artificial limited monopoly
granted by the state for the sole purpose of promoting
innovation for the benefit of the consumer/public. Ideas are
something that everyone should be able to have and
implement. The blocking and monopolization of ideas by state
decree is a very unnatural thing, and should be limited to
only those cases where a definite benefit to the public and
the consumer can be shown.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
A good example of the contextual significance of symbolism is is the two oldest
(?) known scripts. Called "Linear A" and "Linear B", we are
able to translate Linear B, but Linear A remains a complete mystery.
So the symbols exist, but lacking context, they have been deprived of meaning
for us. In theory some day we will rediscover the context for those symbols and
therefore the meaning(s) and therefore the useful data still stored in Linear
A.
The thing is we have that data. It exists. We can and do manipulate it, but only
to sore it, retrieve it, stare at it, and wonder.
This means, by definition, a computer (just like a person) can acquire, control,
and transmit "real" data while maintaining zero comprehension of any
_meaning_ for that data. We know it exists and it happens every day.
Homomorphically (is that a real word) computers don't typically even
"care" about things like the signed or unsigned nature of a domain of
bits. Take two operands of eight bits and apply any of the mathematical
operators (and, not, or, add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc) you will, by
design, execute exactly the same transformation whether the one or both of the
operands are signed or unsigned. That is, the bit patterns that go in and come
out of the transformation are identical. (This is _why_ "two's
complement" was chosen to represent signed numbers in modern computers.
(ASIDE: two's complement also removes some "unfortunate" problems with
the older representations that did care... things like "negative zero"
in ones complement representations. These were removed _because_ they were
inferior mathematical representations. Computers have been, over their
developmental lifecycle, "scrubbed clean" of as much of the
mathematically problematic features as possible.)
The real implication of this whole context-deprived data processing is that any
declaration of "purpose" in program, or a patent for same, is not
material to the technology or "invention".
That is, since data doesn't have any meaning to the computer (which is
demonstrated by the fact that computers assign and require no _meaning_ to the
symbols at all).
So all of the cases of "transferring data between a client and a server for
the purposes of dividing the video stream decoding work" or whatever,
should be stripped of words like "client" "server" and all
the words after "for the purpose of". Such declarations of
"invention" read "transferring data between computers" and
nothing more. The computer doesn't know _why_ and there is no actual distinction
between "client" and "server" when it comes to moving data.
There is just the computer that has data the the computer that doesn't. An HTTP
request, for instance involves data moving from the "client" to the
"server" before the data moves the other way. The "client"
sends data to get the "server" to send data, and that data in turn
usually gets the "client" to send more data to get a
"server" to send more data in turn. The only real distinction is
"we call the thing that goes first the client" or "the server is
the one that waits in standby for another machine". Once a connection is
made things are much less clear cut than most people understand.
Those semantics really don't exist as such.
Software and so software patents are chock-a-block full of distinctions that
make no difference, particularly once you understand that the contexts imposed
for convenience in the mind of the various programmers and writers are stripped
away utterly before the computer starts pushing symbols around.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
The contents of footnote 16 are wholly dependent on the "PC" (e.g.
Intel 8086/8088 architecture) and not computing in general. As such the six
steps outlined in the main text are false. The following is a "better"
definition of what happens in a modern computer:
(0) the computer always has a concept of "the next instruction" which
is located by a value stored in a known location, this location is usually
called "the instruction pointer".
(1) The computer reads the "next instruction" from the memory pointed
to by the instruction pointer into an electrical buffer inside the chip. This
_always_ changes the instruction pointer deterministically, advancing it
"by one instruction".
(2) The act of putting a bit pattern into that buffer electro-mechanically
activates subsections of the chip, each section of which has a fixed
electromechanical function. (The on-ness and the off-ness of the bits literally
turns parts of the CPU on or off.) These sections will be called
"domains" for a moment.
(3) Each electromechanical domain will performs a simple action such as reading
or writing from memory by a particular means (directly, through a register,
etc), doing arithmetic (add, subtract, compare, etc),
NOTE 1: One of the things that can be read or (over)written to is the
instruction pointer. Writing it will change the designated instruction.
Once all of the functional domains are finished, the processor then goes back to
step one (1).
NOTE 2: "instruction decoding" is something of a misnomer and it only
takes place on Complex Instruction Set Computer (CISC) machines. When a complex
instruction is encountered, say a "long multiply" the CPU will replay
a known series of simple instructions that are "built into" the chip.
This replay is electromechanical itself. So there is no thought, or really
actual "decoding" taking place. This is a convenience for the
architecture so that "long or hard" operations like multi-byte
"multiplication" don't have to be done "long-hand".
There is a real electrical and mechanical reason that executing one instruction
is called "turning the crank" as executing one instruction is
identical to pulling the handle on an mechanical adding machine. Indeed in the
original Babbage differential and integral engine designes there was a literal
crank and each full turn was one instruction.
For reference see http://www.retrothing.com/2006/05/curta_miniature.html which
is a primary example of a good mechanical adder. Imagine functional domains that
set the various value levers and then one domain to turn the crank. A different
instruction might not turn the main crank, but turn the clear-accumulator
(outer) crank. The selection of which crank to turn might be the lowest bit of
the instruction for example.
Computational execution of each instruction inside a computer is factually
electromechanical and functionally atomic.
== Now to Opine ==>
The real reason software should not be patentable is that using a machine
exactly how it was designed to operate (and likely already patented to operate
that very way) isn't eligible for patent _again_.
I can't patent "only sewing straight lines using a sewing machine that can
do more". Why should I be able to patent "repeatedly comparing numbers
to a known number to find a 'good' match"?
The computer is already patented. Patenting its application to a particular
purpose that it, as manufactured, is capable of doing, is not inventing
anything. It's using something.
Software can only make a computer do what it can already do by design, and what
it is already patented to do (or not) by the designer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
Polr,
If you are auditing the main "REPLY" comment strings
only, then
please go back to your "THANKS" string above -as
there are questions and
suggestions (read all posts, thank-
you).
Clicky back to:
your "Thanks"
link - with following "new"
comments
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sciamiko on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
It's all a matter of levels of indirection. Lewis Carroll understood it well, as
he wrote in Through the Looking Glass and what Alice found there (Ch
8):
"... The name of the song is called 'Haddocks'
Eyes'"
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to
feel interested.
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a
little vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The
Aged Aged Man'"
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song
is called'?" Alice corrected herself.
"No, you shouldn't: that's quite
another thing! The song is called 'Ways and Means' but that's only
what it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song, then?"
said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
"I was coming to
that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on a Gate', and
the tune's my own invention."
Talking of inventions, Alice later
recognises the tune as another.
s.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
your a [redacted] lawyer
end of story[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
Unfortunately, the problem is not a lack of understanding (though there
certainly is that). The fundamental problem is that Rader and his clowns have
decided that software must be patentable. That is a religious position on their
part. You cannot argue it. They have decided that they are going to make sure
that software is patentable and they will make any ruling, no matter how
illogical or irrational, that is required to achieve that result.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Actually, you can get by with two operators. NOT and either AND or OR. In
logic integrated circuits, the two most common functions are NAND (NOT AND) and
NOR (NOT OR). You can build *EVERYTHING* in logic using just one of those two
functions and nothing else.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
But is it all avoidable if they include
"a system including a computer program where an input device translates
data to symbols and an output device translates the processed symbols back to
data"
Sure the computer is just doing symbol manipulation, aka math mapping from one
domain to another. But when you wrap it with an input device and output device
you get real world effect.
And that is where the patent is. Real world effect of idea space inventions.
The point then is that if it is simply adding the (+input,+output) to the
software makes it a real world machine you might as well just patent the
software as to be useful any software is going to have inputs and outputs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
If the invention contains software and the software can be
written in any computer language, then that aspect of the
invention is protected by Copyright law only.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- is this too simple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:31 AM EDT
- yes, too simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- yes, too simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:14 AM EDT
|
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
There was (is?) a logic display at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto. In
that display, the bits were balls falling down clear tubes to the logic
function. You could see what happened when one or two balls entered an AND or
OR gate. There were more complex functions too.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
Mathematics is a language as are FORTRAN, C, French, German, English, etc.
Mathematics is a precise means of expressing certain concepts.
The fact that something can be expressed in a language doesn't make that thing a
language.
If being able to express an idea in a language makes it unpatentable, then there
can be no patents. Language is how we communicate.
The real problem is absurdly broad claims that lack novelty, such as the LED PWM
patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
Hi - I've never gotten an actual Groklaw account, but have
been a daily visitor since very near the beginning.
Anyway - *please* consider adding a permanent link to a
collection of all of PolR's excellent essays. I don't see
anything like that in the sidebar currently.
These concepts really need to be made clear to our decision-
makers, and I have never seen anyone lay out the issues with
clarity and precision anywhere approaching our worthy
contributor. We ought to make it as easy as possible to
locate these writings.
David Bruce[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Both the program and the data are linguistically
encoded information. No lawyer or jurist could make stand
the negation of this statement in courts.
Inside any executing computer, programs input information
commonly referenced as data, but look at what is actually
happening. The distinction between program and data is
arbitrary and recursively layered like pancake stacks. In
reality, there is no absolute and enforceable difference
between program and data. One's current perspective and
motivation informs one's use of natural language, but
experts understand that there is no theoretical difference,
just linguistic shorthand. Any program is merely data to
another program encoded as hardware circuits, firmware
controllers, or software statements.
Show me any U.S. jurist so incompetent on the bench as to
adjudicate for the patenting of data. Oh! Crap! There is
the DC Court of Appeals turning the 21st Century into
the Dark Ages.
U.S. Copyright law governs intellectual property (IP) rights
for data, not U.S. Patent law. Let them patent hardware.
Firmware depends on the context within the system
hardware, as to patentability in my humble opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Teran on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
Where is the mathematical proof?
Words, words, words.
Lazy. Not fit for peer review.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Supposed I am given a program to "run", with the instructions on a
sheet of paper (memory), a stack of blank paper (to use as registers), a pencil
(data paths perhaps), a metronome to represent the clock, and some switches and
indicator lights (I/O). Why can't it be done?
I don't need a computer to run a program. I could conceivably "run" it
by hand, decided what the instructions meant, and copying data from the
"memory" to my "registers," performing ADD/SUB/Logic gate
operations on paper, flipping switches, and reading indicator lights.
There is nothing inherently special about software, it is simply a type of
mathematics that involves Boolean algebra and a truly massive number of
operations. That is why no one will bother doing it by hand, but that doesn't
mean it couldn't theoretically be done.
If most programs only involved a few operations, no one would venture to say
they were patentable. It is only because they involve
millions/billions/trillions operations that this argument seemingly (but
incorrectly) is said to have merit.
Note: you might say my setup could be patented (perhaps a special station with
the switches and lights arranged in a certain fashion), but you would only be
patenting the HARDWARE, not the software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Thanks for sharing your ideas. I believe we had as previous discussion
regarding software - computation theory - mathematics as they related to patents
a while back.
I continue to make the same basic affirmation - mathematics does not process
anything. But I do believe there is space for patenting software even while
adhering to the idea that software is mathematics. I will _try_ to share my
idea of why, and then I will be suggesting a simple way to reform software
pattens in court by suggesting that presumptions be clarified and/or changed.
Background:
Software/mathematics is a language and so is English.
They are the means by which ideas can be communicated. A system which
understands processor instructions used in software and interprets those
instructions by performing their natural operations (within the context of the
symbols establishing their domain).
The algorithm example you created for e=mc^2 is an example of a mathematical
formula translated into one possible English version understood by even people
not familiar with mathematical equations. Those instructions could
theoretically be followed and some meaning full answer may emerge. (within the
context of the symbols established by the domain encompassing the English
language).
Analysis:
So how can algorithms and patents may relate? I'm going to simplify so that the
complexity of the multi-layer modeling of modern software and computer hardware
don't interfere with my analogy.
The simplest computer and requisite hardware for my example is an abacus. My
software is going to be instructions describing bead manipulations on the
abacus, however it's written on a sheet of paper. The operator of the abacus
takes responsibility for loading (reading) and interpreting the instructions, as
well as changing the state (by means of moving beads) of our computer.
At this point we have a complete system, all of which can be described by
computations theory as well as mathematics. I may even be able to patent the
instructions I've written on the paper, but only if I could create a presumption
that the algorithm would be implemented on the hardware. Of course the main
issue about creating any such presumption is that it would rely on the
presumption of the presence of the operator and more importantly his or her
volition to process my algorithm on the machine.
It's this "where the tire meets the road" point where we need to
examine the patentability of software.
So what about those presumption as they apply to modern computers and software?
Well the operator related functions of loading(reading) has been automated into
the CPU and chipset. The only dependency is whether or not the algorithm is
available to the CPU (wither the software is on disk). However there are still
operator related functional requisites that need to be addressed.
The main issue and the one I believe is interesting to examine, is the issue
about the volition of the operator to process the algorithms available. When
Samsung sells a smartphone it is delivered in the off state. All the software
loaded onto the device might be there but it's undeniably inaccessible because
of the machine state requisite that executing those algorithms require. There
is no useful work or processing that may be performed. Patent infringement is
impossible at this point.
When the owner of the shiny smartphone plugs the phone in and turns it on, is
there an issue where the volition of operator comes into play? Does the
operator not provide a genesis of all the volitions that caused the machine to
start processing the available software? The same can be said about starting
the execution of a program.
Obviously software can load other software and execute it according to the
design or idea the programer may have in mind. Does providing such instructions
in software constitute evidence of some volition of the software maker? Perhaps
it does. But how does that volition compare to that of the operator who turns
the device on?
Conclusion:
Most cases of software patent infringement simply presumes that software is
executed simply because it exists within the memory systems of a device.
Furthermore, the volition of the software maker and the device operator are
often enjoined as though they where one. But the underlying point of where
"the rubber meets the road" is the basis for the validity of software
patents, the software instructions being performed by the hardware is the point
where the validity of software patents is based. It also happens to be the area
where there is no established legal precedent and everything seems to be
presumed.
So obviously one way of reforming software patents is to establish/change these
presumptions. Perhaps create some tests or assign some weight to operator
participation to the model. Certainly by the establishment of a judicial
presumption – that the operator who turns the device on is the genesis of all
operator volition contained in the device – manufacturers of the systems can
enjoy the protections of not willfully infringing any patents. Such a
presumption may even be enough to exempt them completely. The establishment of
such a presumption would obviously would make software patents worthless
although they may still technically be valid.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
My apologies, I did not read very far. The abstract and first sentence
presented enough issues that I stopped there. First, if mathematics
is a
language, then what does language mean? As languages may be
described via
mathematical notation, and we know as an absolute that
natural languages cannot
be described formally, and mathematics require
formal definitions, mathematics
is a formal language described
mathematically. That seems to be a loop. Or,
looking at it another way, if
mathematics is a language, what is the grammar?
What are the words and
sentences that are provably in and out of
syntax? Mathematics is...
well, I can't finish that sentence, but the
definition would have to account for
axioms and extensions built on logic and
proof, just as a definition of
science would have to include observation and
hypotheses. I think
a more promising way to look at software is to
understand that all machine
code is comprised of instructions which come from a
finite set of possible
instructions. Enumerate the steps and use concatenation
and one may
convert
any program into a giant number and each program will be
uniquely
numbered. The number is an integer and thus an element of a countably
infinite set. Therefore,
all programs exist, just as any number we can think
of exists. Unfortunately
for that argument, non-determinism, concurrency and
parallelism issues
interfere with the pure, single-threaded algorithm. Some
problems are NP.
Sometimes choices have to be made which are optimal for one
set of
inputs
and an anti-pattern for another set. We can also easily
imagine
a program that writes a future step as it's executing. The
other issue
that I noted at the outset is that software, hardware, and
firmware are all, in
a very real sense, interchangeable. Any program could
be replicated with
hardware. And indeed, for a dedicated embedded
device, it may be better to
avoid software. Our power grid is at risk to
cyberattack because control
devices have an os and software in order to
facilitate remote monitoring and —
very important — control. Note, I'm not
second guessing the engineers by
mentioning the point. The inconvenience
of replacing hardware with software is
that then the device does only one
thing and in one way. Still, if hardware and
software are interchangeable, it
makes problematic the assertion that software
patents are bad, but
hardware patents acceptable. In Mathematics where
one "gets" is
based on the assumptions, i.e., where one starts. The patent
system has
been fitfully adapted from the steam age into the Information Age.
20 years
seems too long. Innovation is perverted from progress to a search for
the
patentable. Patents don't always work out as well for the inventors as
advertised. Mutual Assured Destruction is as fragile a preventative against
destructive strife as were the alliances of 1910 Europe. I appreciate the
effort you put into writing this and I apologize that by disengaging after
reading the first sentence and footnote I may have missed the
convincing
argument that transcends my comments on semantics. I'm
thinking that liberating
software from the patent system isn't enough and to
focus on that implicitly
endorses our current patent system. We must
choose a different starting
point. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Mathematics and abstract thought exceptions to patentability
in the United States are constructs of the courts.
The reasoning for the exception appears to be patents on
abstract thought and mathematics grant an exclusive right
that is much to broad.
Making the breadth of the patent the determining factor
seems much more useful.
The Church-Turing thesis roughly states that anything that
is achievable can be described with a Turing machine, or the
Lambda calculus.
So from the perspective of scope of a patent grant any
general result in software or mathematics should be denied
patent protection because it is much too general.
Any patent that will not allow someone skilled in the art to
read the patent and create the machine should be denied
patentability because it is not clearly interpretable and
much too general.
Any application of a general result to a specific problem
should be denied patentability because the utility of the
general case is already well understood, and nothing
interesting is added.
So for a test I would propose the questions how broad is the
applicability of this patent? If the answer is not
obviously a small narrow field there is a problem. If the
patent may not be worked around by a small modification I
suggest that the patent is too broad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ikh on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
An excellent article as usual from PoIR.
First some clarifications of some of the usual mis-understands that are littered
through out the comments.
A computer is just the memory and the processor. These two elemnts are what make
a Turing machine. Keybord, mouse, network and all other input or output devices
are referd to as peripherals. They work by writing to or reading from particular
memory locations and then signaling the processor that data has been read or
written. Peripherals form a part of a computer sytem but they are not part of
the computer its self. They are not part of the computational system that is a
realisation of a Universal Turing Machine.
We don't have to argue that the source code of a computer program is Maths or
abstract though becase the courts have already clearly stated this to be the
case and Patent Lawyers have not found a weakness that they feel they can argue
against with source code.
This is why, Patent Lawyers argue that loading a program into a computer makes a
new patentable machine. This is why PoIR concentrated on the representation of
software in a running computer.
Software, whether in source code or when running on a computer is an algebra. We
can mathematically prove a one for one mapping between source code and the
running representation of the program on a processor. As PoIR has said, modern
dgital computers use bits ( short for binary digits ) as the representation. But
nothing in the maths of computation requires this. It is just the most practical
method of realising a computer.
There are three different mathematical systems that define the axioms, and rules
for computers. PoIR favours Llambda Calculus, I am more familar with Turing
Machines, and others may prefer the theory of recursive functions. It does not
matter which is used because they have been mathematically proven to be
equivelent to each other. They all produce machines with identical properties.
I need to say a little about proof here. Proof is used in different ways in
different subjects. E.g. in Law, in a civil case in the U.S. and U.K. legal
proof is
about evaluating the evidence on the "Balance of Probabilities". In a
criminal case the evidence is evaluated against the criteria of "beyond a
Reasonable doubt". In science, ( Physics, Chemistry, Biology ) The standard
of evidence is even higher. When General Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravity
there was just one piece of evidence that Physics could not explain. The orbit
of the planet Mercury. General Relativity also made a predection of
gravitational lensing. General Relativity produce results that predicted both of
these and matched all the results from Newtonian gravity and therefore it
replace Newtonian gravity as the model we use for gravity.
Mathematical proofis a very different beast. It is an absolute. If I prove
something mathematically, there, by definition, will never be a counter example.
Andrew Wiles in 1995 proved Fermats last Therom. It says that you can not have
an equation of a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer n where n is greater than 2.
Where a^n means raising a to the power n. In all of known history, there has
never been a well fomed mathematical proof where evidence can produce a counter
example.
Now, you can not mathematically prove a law of physics. In fact, laws of physics
or any other science, are really models that are the most predictive that we
have been able to create so far. To be able to prove something mathematically
you have to be doing Maths.
So what can we say mathematically about software or computer programs. Well, we
can write the specification of a computer program in maths. We can then implemnt
the specification in the programming language of your choice. Lets say I
implement it in C++. We can then mathermatically prove that the implementation
is exactly equivilent to the specification at the source code level. We can then
implement the specification in BASIC and prove that it is equivelent. We can do
the same thing with assembler language. We can also prove that the assembler
language is one for one equivelent to the binary representation of the running
program.
If software was not maths then these proofs would not be possible.
Software is mathematics. Sadly, there are highly trained engineers, Physisits,
Applied Mathematicians out there that have not had the training in the correct
areas of Mathematics and Computer Science, that do not understand this
relationship. This does not change the truth. As anyone with a reasonable
mathematical training will tell you, there are many mathematical results that
are counter-intuitive and go completely against common sense. Common sense has
nothing to do with mathematical results.
Let me give a very simple example of unintutive maths ( other may come up with
better examples. ) Divison by zero in Maths is an illegal operation. By common
sense, a lot of people would expect division by zero would produce infinity.
Instead, it is absolutely forbidden in Maths. Why? It is simple. If you allow
division by zero you can prove a therom to be true, and you can prove the same
therom to be false. Let me make that a little more concrete. Most of us, from
school remember Pythagaros therom. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the
sum of the squares of the other tw sides. There are literally hundreds of proofs
of this therom. After all a therom means that there is at least one mathematical
proof. If we allow division by zero then it becomes possible to prove the therom
wrong! This breaks mathematics. That is why the operation is forbidden.
Software is Mathematics, not because I say so, but because it is an algebra.
Because software make theroms. Because I can make proofs. It is irrelevant if I
use maths formulas and equations in software. They are not important. Diamond v
Diehr says that using equations in an invention does not stop that being a
patentable invention. But software itself can never be patentable nor can
software alone ever infringe a patent.
This leads on to the questions asked by the Court of Appeals.
a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented
invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea"; and when, if ever,
does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an
otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
Its simple. In Diamond v Diehr a computer controlled the process of curing
rubber. Ignore how the computer does what it does but not what it does. Alow the
computer to be substituted by a human to do what the computer does. Do you still
have an invention? In Diamond V Diehr, if the compiuter were replaced by a human
making the calculations, you still have a new process for curring rubber. That
is reasonably patentable. Does it patent the computer program? No! I could use
exactly the same program in a simulator of rubber curing and it should not
infringe.The computer program is not protected. The mathematical equation used
to decide how long to cure the rubber is not protected. Only the whole process
of curring rubber is protected.
The second questions asked by the Court of Appeals was:
b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a
computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is
claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times
be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
Absolutely not. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the
formulation of the claim, the words used should be irrelivent. All such claims
should be equivelent.
/ikh
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jjon on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
The article briefly mentioned printing presses, and that got
me thinking:
Computer
hardware should be treated like printing presses. I.e.:
You can
patent an improved printing press; you should be
able to patent
improved
computer hardware.
You can copyright (but not patent) a book that's
printed
with a printing press;
you
should be able to copyright (but not
patent) a computer
program that runs on a
computer.
You can't patent "a
printing press configured to print a
specific type of
book",
since loading the
printing plates into the press clearly
doesn't make a
different
machine for
patent purposes. So you shouldn't be able to
patent "a
computer
configured to
run a specific algorithm", since it clearly
doesn't make a
different
machine.
Question: Given the current patent law, as used for software
patents, why CAN'T
I
patent "a printing press configured to print <some new
book>"?
Is this a way to
show the absurdity of the current law? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:16 AM EDT |
.
The computer, since it is electrical, can basically only recognize current and
no current. It can therefore only read numbers, binary numbers that reflect its
binary nature --on and off. There is an on and off switch on the outside but
multitudes more on the inside. They go to things like disk drives, speakers,
ports, peripherals, accessories, etc.
To make it all work one has to give the computer instructions, but the computer
can only read the numbers. Numbers that correspond to hardware in the computer
and set circuits to do work are translated to words that can be used to
manipulate the computer. That becomes programming language. You have to use
these words in a specified way and you can't make anything up unless you define
it to the computer with words it already knows or the right binary number.
So instructing a computer is specialized "language" which underneath
has to be numbers and math.
A computer can do everything you tell it to do. A patent on speech is patenting
an abstraction. Expressions of ideas and writings enjoy copyright protection.
Imagine if there were patents on poems of love.
Could I send thee messages on the wings of a dove?
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:29 AM EDT |
The "software is maths" argument is actually too deep, the patents
should have been rejected simply because they did not describe anything novel.
Computers are general purpose machines, they are supposed to be able to do
anything physically within their compass, I can't patent undoing crosshead
screws with a flathead screwdriver that happens to fit. If you can find a way to
make a computer produce toffee-apples without adding anything to its normal
peripherals, that would be patentable, but do sort or process data, that is what
it was designed to do!
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
If the universe is a simulated reality, the question of patentability via
this test becomes muddled.
Background: It is possible that the universe
is merely a simulation generated by some extremely complex computing force. Our
being simulated is difficult to test, but is nonetheless a possibility which
cannot be ruled out, and which has implications for the question "what is math".
By the reasoning in this article, all products of the simulation are expressions
of some mathematical framework. In what cases are patents valid for objects
which, in the context of the simulation are non-mathematical, but from outside
the simulation are math?
You might argue that descriptions within the
simulation may hold to objects without the simulation, and therefore they are
described by mathematics rather than deduced. It is possible, however,
that descriptions within the simulation are meaningless when applied outside of
the simulation. If the laws of physics significantly differ outside the
simulation vis-a-vis our own, one might conclude that our description describes
a purely mathematical object with no "real world" equivalent.
We might
find, rather, that our patents hold only within the confines of our own
universe. This makes some sense, but begs the question: what if the description
provided by the patent holds outside of our own universe? Does the fact that the
idea was generated within the simulation somehow invalidate its patentability
without? Perhaps the patent should hold everywhere it is valid. But how do you
distinguish between the patent being used within the model, and the patent being
used by some outside agent who interacts with the model?
It seems that one
possible test would be whether the description generates the object, or
merely describes it. That is, despite the fact that an object is generated by
some mathematical process, manipulation of that object by subsequent
mathematical process may still be patentable. If the object, and therefore its
manipulation, hold no meaning outside of the mathematical structure, then its
patentability is moot outside of said structure. Within the simulation, however,
the manipulation could be just as "real" as the operation of a cotton gin, and
may therefore be patentable.
So if one piece of software defines a
symbol, and another manipulates it, where does this leave us? And how do we
define where one algorithm ends and another begins? For that matter, do our own
patents hold in our own simulations when those simulations become sufficiently
complex that the patent might be implemented within? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
This rolls around every few months. What's the point?
Mathematics is used as the building blocks in a lot of different fields
(including music).
That doesn't make all these fields "mathematics".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
...you might end up getting mathematics patented.
In fact it looks like that
has already happened for "hard" math.
Does not compute: court says only hard math is
patentable [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
A procedure can manipulate symbols without being mathematics. To be
mathematics, the manipulations have to be selected from a set that is defined
clearly enough that they can be carried out identically by different people
following the same instructions. The rules must be unambiguous.
Law and art can involve manipulation of abstract symbols, but they're not
math.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Maot on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
If software is maths, is maths software? Is software just a proper subset of
maths? I believe not.
I'm not disagreeing with the view presented here I just believe there are other,
equally valid views. Some may be based on intangibles but are not invalid views.
All viewpoints should be able to co-exist.
Aside from trying to fit a taxonomy in order to apply a silly law, or for the
purposes of pure computer science or pure math research, who normally cares?
Yes, using the perspective that software is just maths can be helpful in some
circumstances, in others, such a view does not help.
I've made a living as a software engineer (or teacher of software engineering)
now for many years.
I am not, never have been and never will consider myself a mathematician. I know
plenty of great mathematicians who would never consider themselves programmers
or software engineers. Can they write software - some of them! Can I do math?
Sure; however, why bother, that's what my computer is good at :-)
So from this simple perspective, software is not math, it's a different
discipline done by different people, with different aptitudes. Math is done by
mathematicians, software is done by software engineers - or if you're unlucky,
programmers :-D
I'm not arguing that all software can't inherently be represented as maths,
broken down into it's sub-components, which is the view presented in this
article.
Sure, it can - however, to the layman and also the the professional, this
shouldn't matter (at least not often).
Nor should it matter to the lawyer, like I say, in this context we're discussing
a silly law that can be interpreted many ways by many experts.
Next: what does software do? Does all software solve mathematical problems? Not
as far as the user is concerned and often, not as far as the programmer is
concerned. We build abstractions on the shoulder of giants. With the
abstractions sufficiently far removed from the maths, it really is no longer
maths. The sum is greater than the parts.
That's the value we add.
Are we just big bags of minerals and water? No.
When we build a machine with a consciousness (and it's a matter of when, not if,
in my opinion) is that maths? No, of course not, no more than you or I are just
maths.
How we define and draw the line between software and maths is always going to be
open to interpretation - a grey area, however, I believe something becomes more
than just maths and becomes software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
If you can copyright it, you can't patent it.
The problem we face is that legal boundaries and definitions are fluid and can
be pushed. And where those boundaries and definitions are consistently pushed in
only one direction over time they tend to move.
It isn't enough to have a clear logical argument that everyone agrees makes
sense. That clear argument will be twisted into a pretzel over time by the
pressure. Even clear simple language like "Software as such cannot be
patented" can be twisted over time to mean the exact opposite. What hope
then does your more complicated quasi-philosphical argument have of withstanding
such pressure?
The ONLY way to win a long term victory here is to create a boundary that CANNOT
move because it will be pushed from both sides. All it takes to do this is the
bedding in of a very simple principle. Things which can be copyrighted cannot be
patented.
If this is established in law then courts cannot give in to the pressure to
patent software without immediately invalidating copyright on that same type of
software.
People are going to want to push on both sides of that boundary. People will in
fact be reluctant to push that boundary at all as in doing so they may just hurt
themselves.
That is the only way to win here - to turn the enemies strength against himself.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Makes zero sense - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
To me it's obvious.
Software is to computers what a perforated roll of paper is to a player piano.
The persons who invented the player piano and the computer were entitled to
patent protection. The people who make the "sheet music
program"/"computer program" which the the player piano/computer
plays are entitled to Copyright Protection.
End of story.
You can't patent a work of art. That's all a computer program is. A work of
multimedia, interactive art, normally reduced to an electronic digital
representation. But can just as easily be reduced to a perforated roll of paper
fed into a specific reading device. Or a stack of perforated cardstock.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
Has anyone, anywhere ever experimented with interfacing an ordinary computer to
an electric piano keyboard for the purpose of obtaining character inputs
(particularly commands and source code)? I envisage a courtroom demonstration
where a computer-illiterate musician is handed an original score and is able to
play it with sufficient accuracy that the result is plausibly music but has the
side effect of programming the computer to do something obviously intentional (-
display "Hello World!" perhaps). With suitably sparse sampling of the
fairly rich available input it ought to be possible to embed the programming
activity in the music - not so much hidden as an extra layer of functionality
available to more sophisticated interpretations. It may be a very inefficient
programming mechanism but I see no loss in generality and nothing to suggest
patentability in comparison with any other musical composition where copyright
is the only available protection. Even as a thought experiment it might have
some value but I would not be surprised if the necessary ingredients are already
available or within easy reach by adaptation.
jjb~49[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
Just a suggestion, when writing this sort of piece, you should always come
right out and announce your conclusion right in the beginning. You talk about
a test that you are proposing right in the beginning, but by the time I finish
reading, I am not really sure what the test is. Don’t hide the ball, just come
out
and tell us what you want to convince us of.
Is it "As long as the
procedure manipulates symbols their meanings will
never confer patent
eligibility."? Every computer-implemented method
manipulates symbols, right?
So what is left as being patentable?
Is it "Activities like input,
output and mental steps of reading, writing and
thinking about the meaning of
symbols should not confer patent eligibility to a
manipulation of symbols."?
If none of these things confer patent eligibility and
manipulation doesn't
confer patent eligibility, what confers eligibility? Are you
just arguing for
against software patents altogether? That isn't really a test,
unless you test
is to determine whether something is a computer-implemented
method.
Is
it "Data gathering where nothing more is achieved but obtaining the data
which
will be manipulated should not confer patent eligibility to a manipulation
of
symbols."?
Is it . . .????
This entire piece seems to be about
what is not patent eligible. You never
talk about what is a patent eligible
computer-implemented method. In other
words, how do you apply your test
(whatever it is) to that find a computer-
implement method is patentable. The
Federal Circuit isn't asking whether any
computer-implemented methods can be
patented (this is already well settled).
The Federal Circuit is asking how to
determine whether a given computer-
implemented method is patentable. Can you
apply your test both ways?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 02:46 AM EDT |
The meanings given to the symbols should make no difference. I suggest this
as the line:
As long as the procedure manipulates symbols their
meanings will never confer patent eligibility.
There's this issue
of abstracts that goes beyond signals and symbols. For instance court systems
allow electronic filing in general allowing PDF or other document
formats.
There's a point of philosophy that became prominent during the
middle ages on 'the name is the thing', where you treat the named object as the
object itself.
A file in a particular format (e.g. Word .doc) is not a
document. It's software for a virtual machine to be able to effect the printing
of a document. WYSIWYG editors just happen to allow us to manipulate the result
as if it were real - in the abstract.
As far as the rest of us we happily
exchange document format files and entertain them as they were equivalent with
printed documents. The definition of document has been
extended to embrace the virtual machine program representation (See 3:).
We
can manage to understand that even in computer storage it's still a symbolic
representation (See 2 b:). Yet we allow patents on symbolic representation
manipulations (
I4i v. Microsoft, US Patent 5,787,449 where we
equate the symbolic representation (document file) with "an original or official
paper relied on as the basis, proof, or support of something (1 b:).
All
when those symbolic representations in computer memory are comprised of signals ("a
detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage, current, or magnetic
field strength) by which messages or information can be transmitted ").
MPEP
2106 Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility directs us to the distinction as to when signals
are not patentable eligible:
Non-limiting examples of claims that
are not directed to one of the statutory categories:
i.
transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical
or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d
1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);
ii. a naturally occurring organism,
Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;
iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September
16, 2011);
iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In
re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert.
denied);
v. a game defined as a set of rules;
vi. a computer
program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;
vii. a company,
Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and
viii. a mere arrangement of printed
matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA
1969).
A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory
embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read
in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces
subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step and
should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 , for at least this
reason.
It's this intersection of symbol ("something
that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship,
association, convention, or accidental resemblance", 2 b:) and signal that
suggests the key to understanding the limits of symbols in patents. We look at
In re Nuijten which despite Judge Linn's minority opinion found that signals
aren't articles of manufacture (the closet of the four categories of patentable
subject matter as described in MPEP 2106. They are Process, Machine,
Manufacture and Composition of Matter). We have seen various District decisions
promoting non-transitory signals to composition of matter.
We see the word
transitory in the MPEP quote above and the decision depended on non-transitory
to define and article of manufacture. We see that the MPEP 2106 I. iii
definition of ("an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to
these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by
handlabor or by machinery") is likely broad enough to include changes in
magnetic permeability in storage media or perhaps even FLASH or other
nonvolatile memory not based on magnetic hysteresis.
It does suggest that
the patentability hinges on imperative versus declarative forms (methods versus
abstracts) which should also embrace non-transitory versus transitory. We see
software patents embracing methods of producing non-transitory effects
representing signals (symbols) but generally not abstracts themselves
(Bilski).
For software patents there's this intersection between copyright
and patent articles of manufacture that might be governed by In re Miller which
cites a reliance on printed matter.
Software per se isn't patentable. Gottschalk v. Benson which addresses for the most
parts the four categories of patentable subject matter under § 101 and shows
transformation of signals by themselves is abstract, the transitory or
declarative side versus imperative of method side. The Supreme Court also
throws the issue over the the fence to Congress:
If these programs
are to be patentable,[6] considerable problems are raised which only
committees of Congress can manage, for broad powers of investigation are needed,
including hearings which canvass the wide variety of views which those operating
in this field entertain. The technological problems tendered in the many briefs
before us[7] indicate to us that considered action by the Congress is
needed.
That ambiguity has never been resolved by Congress.
It
looks like without Congressional action the only chink in the armor for software
patents on either strong enforcement of transitory versus non-transitory
transformation or the printed matter doctrine.
See Semiotics
101: Taking the Printed Matter Doctrine Seriously, Kevin Emerson Collins |
85 Indiana Law Journal 1379 (2010):
The printed matter doctrine is
a branch of the section 101 doctrine of patent eligibility that, among other
things, prevents the patenting of technical texts and diagrams. The contemporary
formulation of the doctrine is highly problematic. It borders on incoherency in
many of its applications, and it lacks any recognized grounding in the Patent
Act. Yet, despite its shortcomings, courts have not abandoned the printed matter
doctrine, likely because the core applications of the doctrine place limits on
the reach of the patent regime that are widely viewed as both intuitively
“correct” and normatively desirable. Instead of abandoning the doctrine, courts
have marginalized it. They have retained the substantive effects of the printed
matter doctrine but avoided analyzing it whenever possible. This Article adopts
a different approach: it takes the printed matter doctrine seriously. It
reinterprets the printed matter doctrine as the sign doctrine, revealing both
the conceptual coherence hidden in the doctrine’s historical applications and
the doctrine’s as-of-yet unnoticed statutory grounding. The key to this
reconceptualization is recognizing that the printed matter doctrine is in effect
already based on semiotic principles. The printed matter doctrine purports to be
about information, but it is actually about signs. It purports to curtail the
patenting of worldly artifacts, but it actually curbs the reach of patent
protection into mental representations in the human mind. To support these
arguments, this Article offers a course in “Semiotics 101”: a semiotics primer
strategically targeted on the principles that prove to be relevant to the
section 101 doctrine of patent eligibility. This Article also examines one
unexpected consequence of taking the printed matter doctrine seriously and
adopting a semiotic framework. It reconsiders the patentability of a class of
software inventions which are defined here as “computer models.” As a matter of
semiotic logic, the routine patentability of newly invented computer models
under the contemporary patent eligibility doctrine cannot be reconciled with the
categorical unpatentability of mechanical measuring devices with new labels
under the printed matter doctrine.
The actual article can be found
here
(PDF, 972 KB). The gist of which is that we don't disambiguate types of
software patents sufficiently to avoid those dealing purely in signs (symbols,
semiotics). Fixing that would likewise appear to fall under the remit of
Congress. In the mean time we get both patentees (their practitioners) and
courts relying on semantic distinctions that can't always be supported
compounded by a Patent Office more than willing to let the courts sort it all
out.
The question is can the Supreme Court or the CAFC provide a decision
that can limit excesses? What is needed immediately is guidance preventing
contrasting court decisions based on conflicting interpretations.
I'd
personally like to see disk storage of signals held to be transitory, though
that's not likely to happen. There's also a collision with the printed matter
doctrine that perhaps should. Storage is the media upon which a narrative is
written.
There's this distinction in copyright between authorship and
copies that storage media sneaks under the tent skirt into patents by equating
manufacture with fixation.
And this says pure software ought to pick one,
copyright or patents. The issue being it may be easier to avoid copyright than
a patent because copyright protection does not extend to the underlying idea.
Well guess what, it doesn't in patents either other than process patents and
certainly not as far as the domain of printed matter.
What's needed is a
greater confluence of legal and technological expertise in making legal
decisions from the looks of thing. What we get is semantic analysis without
understanding the semiotics (signs). The slightest language shift leads one
audience or another astray.
In the mean time it may be sufficient to make
the distinction between process (imperative) and math (declarative) while noting
programs can contain both. Sort of makes you wonder if you could hang up a
patent claim based on software source language. You might make a plaintiff
prove what happens by expert witness. We've already seen expansive
interpretations there.
Then again there are those of us who question whether
software patents address Constitutional purpose which doesn't appear to provide
a short cut, either.
In the mean time it might be safe to say as long as
manipulation of symbols doesn't produce an actual machine, a manufacture of one
or more articles, or composition of matter symbols themselves don't confer
patent eligibility.
I enjoyed reading the article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
When is the deadline to submit amicus briefs to the Federal
Circuit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
In the sentence "If you go read these definitions in textbooks from
competent authors you will find they are all elements of the language of
mathematics.", you should drop the word "go" since you have two
conjugated verbs side-by-side.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
sounds like an excuse for more frivolous lawsuits- be a lawyer- win the lottery
(or several...)
one would wonder how many patents were being built for hundreds of years before
the patent office existed (DaVinci???)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
For precision:
E = m c**2
Calculates the energy of the "rest mass" - the energy of a particle at
rest. This is useful in calculating the energy liberated when a particle and an
instance of the anti-particle annihilate each another.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
I believe you are correct in showing that software is
Mathematics. Applying the
rule of syllogism to the
generalization that "Mathematics
is
abstract", one
finds that software algorithms are abstract
ideas
and therefore should not be
patentable.
However, the same facts and concepts that you use to
show that
software is mathematics can be used to show
directly, that
software is abstract. You
could then go directly to saying that software should
not be
patentable.
By doing that you eliminate the syllogism above,
simplifying the argument.
You also short circuit all the fallacious
arguments, (but
tedious and time consuming to refute), in
prior replies about
the precise boundaries of Mathematics.
Why is this not a way to strengthen
the argument? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
Recommendation One:
Every patent must identify how future infringements are
detected and characterized, as to the requested monopoly.
Recommendation Two:
No activity that eludes all the patent's stated detection
methods is liable for infringing that patent.
Recommendation Three:
All detection methods and characterizations of
infringements are restricted to direct observations and
physical measurements (e.g., voltmeter, spectrometer).
The patents I have been involved with are shockingly
murky. Even the patent attorneys decided one granted
patent has two completely antithetical interpretations.
The adversary was banking on this flaw in their patent
to win in court.
It is not sufficient to claim what the patent covers. The
patent should clearly state in legal, operational steps,
precisely how the world will determine infringement in any
future legal proceeding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|