Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

What Does "Software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - Software Is Manipulation of Symbols ~ by PolR | 758 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

What Does "Software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - Software Is Manipulation of Symbols ~ by PolR

Authored by: ikh on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 02:10 AM EDT

Hi PoIR,

Yes, you are correct and I was sloppy. I should have indicated that there are
more than just the tree classical models of computation. Mea Cupa.

I must admit I have not come across RASP. Time for some reading. My love of
Turing machines is that they are so simple and accessible to the non
mathematician.

For me, thr key issue is how should the patent system regards software. And the
answer is that software can *Never* infringe a patent.

I.e. if I take a copy of the software in Diamond v Diehr and use it in a process
that does not cure rubber then that is not infringing. If I use a copy of that
software in an otherwise non-infringing rubber curing process then it is again
non-infringing.

I.e. Software of and by its self can never cause patent infringment and
therefore software its self can not be protected by a patent.

/ikh

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )