|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Thanks for this post. I want to clarify a point of detail.
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.
Actually there are more possible ways than this. The
three you mention are venerable and time honored because they are explicitly
mentioned in the Church-Turing thesis. They are the historical root of
computation theory and their theoretical importance have never faded.
But
other models of computations have since been found to be equivalent to these
three. This page
lists several more possibilities. For purposes of discussing patent law I
prefer the RASP
(Random Access Stored Program) over the Turing-machine because it is closer
to a real computer. A Turing machine uses a linear tape recording symbols to
store the data. A RASP uses a random access indexed array of integers. Both are
abstract mathematical machines and they are Turing-equivalent. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 03:38 AM EDT |
Whoops -- the software patents do not describe any such "new
machine".
In fact, they can't. They can't describe the electrical states within the
computer when their program is running -- because those states are different
depending on whether you bought a Dell or an Apple or an IBM or what.
Not only is there no "new machine" -- that would be like saying that
the Jacquard Loom became a new machine every time new punch cards were loaded
into it -- but even if there were a new machine, the software patents never
describe this machine at all.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
I agree with this, whole-heartedly, but you go on to say 'the courts have
already clearly stated this to be the case'.
I think you may have over
interpreted Microsoft v. AT&T. The Supremes opined that an infringing
machine was not produced until the executable code is installed in a
general purpose computer. The source code and executable code did not constitute
an especially made component of the infringing machine. Only the final
installation media holding the executable code was an infringing component.
(This is all total... total... well, never you mind, but that is what they
said).
The source code and executable code can still be deemed
potentially infringing when the protected invention is a method or process
rather than (or as well as!!!) a machine/system, as we saw in Oracle v.
Google.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
