|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST |
There is a point we should not forget when discussing this type of issues.
Patent do not grant rights on source code. Also see footnote 2 in the article.
The argument is not that source code is math. So all the discussions about
whether source code is math are moot because
(a) it is already conceded that source code is not math and
(b) it is already conceded that source code is not patentable.
Patents are granted on the execution. The theory is that a new machine is made,
or equivalently, a new process by which the machine operates is made.
The software is math slogan stands for the proposition that this execution is
the performing of a universal mathematical algorithm.
Sure the bits have meanings and this permits all kinds of applications with
useful repercussions. But the meanings are not part of the structure of the
machine and they are not used by the execution of the universal algorithm. This
legal theory of making of a new machine is factually incorrect. Meanings are in
the mind of people. They are interpretants. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 12:03 PM EST |
Source code is just signs. The computer executes the algorithms formed by the
logical disposition of the signs.
Someone reading the signs may determine a rich body of interpretants, including
interpretants that show the meaning and intent of the writer when writing the
source code, by adding meaning to individual signs. The signs are viewed as
shared symbolic meanings.
There may be comments which extend this understanding still further. When
considered more generally, there may be another layer of interpretants flowing
from shared social, political, and aesthetic backgrounds. These are irrelevant
to the intended execution of the algorithms denoted by the sign set.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 02:49 AM EST |
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The symbol '10' when viewed by a programmer in this context is the line number
of the algorithmic step of the program. 'PRINT' is a computer command that
causes the following expression to be sent to the line output device, generally
a text terminal. CHR$ means that the following expression is of the form of text
which may be explicit or may be generated by a math function. GOTO followed by a
line number is a computer command that means go to that line number.
The above is a description of the interpretants of a programmer. There are no
referents, as such, because the interpretants are abstract concepts rather than
concrete things. The interpretant set is abstract ideas.
The source code will not execute. Neither will it be interpreted by the
computer. The computer will employ an algorithm which manipulates all of the
character signs including non-printing characters like 'end of line' and 'line
feed', spaces and punctuation when they are saved, in a computer file or memory,
as binary numbers representing the signs in the source code. There are no lines
or ends of lines in a source code file. Those things are interpretants.
The signs are the individual binary number representing individual characters.
The computer does not manipulate 'words' (groups of signs). 'PRINT' is merely a
five sign set. The sequence of the signs in the file or memory is important
because algorithms and data are sequential constructs.
The binary signs in the file or in memory would, in this case, typically be
passed to an 'interpreting' algorithm which manipulates each individual binary
symbol in the order in which it appears in the file or memory. The programmer
envisages the interpretants of a computer 'interpreter' 'parsing' the source
code text and 'translating' the text to machine code instructions, but the
'interpreter' algorithm merely produces an intermediary sign file which can be
further manipulated by 'libraries', 'operating system' and other 'APA' code
(APAs are only a textual representation of interpretants - not the algorithms
that appear to the programmer as fulfilling the interpretants).
None of the algorithmic code in a computer is privy to any interpretants.
The line 'PRINT ('Hello World')' contains many interpretants for programmers.
'Hello', in isolation, is a verbal greeting. An individual instance of use of
the verbal greeting is a referent. 'World' in isolation is almost universally
taken by people as an interpretant of 'The Earth' whereby The Earth is also the
referent. To a programmer, the symbol 'Hello World' has the interpretant of a
simple message generated when looking for a short program to try out a new
programming language. An individual appearance of the symbol on a computer
screen may be a referent. In this comment, 'Hello World' is not the referent. It
is not generated by a simple computer programming language.
The interpretants cannot be saved or worked upon by the processor because they
only exist in the mind of the programmer. Computer user input data from keyboard
and mouse determine the single algorithm executed by the computer from start to
finish of a computer session (Power On to Power Off). The interpretant of the
computer user is that he is 'asking' the computer to execute the 'required'
'individual' algorithms.
The interpretants in symbol sets are abstract ideas. No computer code of any
sort encompasses interpretants. This is important because abstract ideas cannot
be protected either by copyright law or by patent law.
Only referents claimed by patent text may be patented as inventions. The
referents may not, legally, have to be real world objects such as a cat or a
cog. However, the referents claimed must pass the legal patent test for
statutory subject matter stated in U.S.C 35 ยง101.
Only novel forms of creative expression, fixed in a medium and expressing
interpretants may be protected by copyright.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
