|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:33 AM EST |
You saidthere needs to be a demonstration of material transformation
outside of the programmed computer (particular machine)
The phrase
'machine or transformation' is a red rag to the Supreme Court. The word
'transformation' will always be misunderstood as 'curing rubber' or 'extruding
plastic.
I like the referent part of the semiotics triad because it is
always apt and intellectually rigorous. Nothing can be almost a referent or
virtually a referent. It cannot be misconstrued as an experiment in
chemistry.
Anyway, PolR's essay shows that, whilst data in a computer
may be said to be transformed, it can never be a referent. It will always be a
manipulation of signs. (It can only be a manipulation of symbols if the sign
manipulation can be viewed by a human being to envisage the interpretant. That
never happens. Human beings only ever see a trail of breadcrumbs.)
You
phrase leaves room for the idea that there can be a material transformation
inside of the computer and I'm sure you will agree that we don't want to leave
even a hint of that. PoiR has demonstrated scientifically (impresses the judges,
as well as me) that internal material transformation is not possible inside a
computer.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
