|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 01:45 PM EST |
Obvious if you, me and the rest of the public cannot understand an
existing patent then we are unskilled in the art...
Is this a
sarcasm? It goes the other round. If computer professionals cannot read a
software patent then its disclosure functions are not being
fulfilled.
Thus, by providing a program that computes the Dow Jones
average, you have really transformed a computer from one that does not compute
that index to a computer that can now compute that index.
Nope.
Even with the program the computer is just a machine that moves around electrons
and lits pixels. It is incapable of computer the Dow Jones average by itself. In
order to compute a Dow Jones average you also need a human being to read meaning
in the pixels. Electrons and pixels mean nothing without the conventions a human
reader would use to see significance in them. A Dow Jones average is a thought
in the human's mind. It is not a physical feature of the computer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM EST |
As a computer programmer, I removed computers from boxes back in the 1980s.
They contained complete manuals explaining how to program them, to do anything I
wanted.
I bought a computer which could compute the DJIA, given a trained user (i.e. a
computer programmer), just as a sewing machine can sew on the bias given a
trained user (given a seamstress).
Do you really not get it? You're trying to claim that you've "transformed
the machine" simply by using it for one of the purposes for which it was
sold.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM EST |
So you have invented new low level hardware operation then? Is there a CDJA in
addition to ADD SUB INV et al?
No, you are just using the commands in a different order. The computer has still
not changed. Take it from an experienced programmer: I can code whatever I like,
the computer still behaves the same at the core. This "transformation"
concept is merely an abstract invention of software patent proponents.
Let me ask you then: can I use this "new machine" to do something
else, thus transforming it yet again? What if I make it a DJ average computer
PLUS nightlight? By your logic, that would be an entirely new machine, and I
would no longer be subject to your patent restrictions.
---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
