|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 10:34 AM EST |
So, you're still at the black box/magic stage with technology.
That's fine, but leave technical discussions to the people who actually
understand this, won't you?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST |
So you're arguing that "software patents" don't exist as such. If the
physical component is the patentable piece, your point is irrelevant.
Software is instructions, instructions are not patentable.
I'll cut this short and avoid any further troll feeding by leaving aside
arguments about applying process patents to Turing Complete systems that
invariably lead us to the prosecution's claims in Prometheus.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:14 PM EST |
Somebody does not know what premium incentive marketing is all about. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 11:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM EST |
Valid software patents claim devices or processes involving
devices
So by this reasoning since Android is not device specific
there are no valid patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|