[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Please read Theme 1 in the update of Michael Risch's blog post. Each step of the algorithm is most likely a separate claim. Also, patents do not provide the actual implementation but allow someone skilled in the art to provide an implementation. Thus you cannot avoid infringing at least one of the claims if you implement that algorithm covered by a patent regardless of the computer language, operating system or processor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• My "Aha" Moment. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:49 PM EST
  • It means that someone got a patent on the abstract idea. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 04:20 AM EST
• My "Aha" Moment - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:11 PM EST
  • Skilled in the art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST
    • Skilled in the art - Authored by: PolR on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 01:45 PM EST
      • unskilled in the art ... - Authored by: nsomos on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 03:00 PM EST
        • conflation of "skilled in the art" - by Lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 03:38 PM EST
          • conflation of "skilled in the art" - by Lawyers - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 05:13 PM EST
    • Bullshit. The computer could always compute the DJIA. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM EST
    • Still wrong - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM EST
• My "Aha" Moment - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:21 PM EST
  • Fonar v. GE, when misinterpreted, is the getout. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 04:22 AM EST