|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 11:35 AM EST |
In your view, does programming a machine transform that machine into a
"patentable new machine"?
That seems ridiculous given that all computing machines are built to do
computations. You're just using the machine for the purpose that it was built.
It doesn't create a new machine that is patentable.
Imagine a farmer with a plow. This plow automatically puts seeds into the
field as it plows. This plow is a patentable invention. Now, the farmer puts
corn seeds into the plow and then uses it. That doesn't transform the generic
plow into a "corn plow" that is a "new machine", it's just
being used for its intended purpose.
If the farmer changes the seeds to peanut seeds, it doesn't suddenly change
the plow into a "peanut plow" that is a "new patentable
machine" different from the generic plow or "corn plow".
How is putting new software onto a machine make it a "new
machine"?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 12:10 PM EST |
I think I may understand the problem you are having:
You are a mechanical engineer. You are used to dealing with physical objects.
Software is not a physical object, it is nothing more than an idea (albeit
written down). Therefore your gut will get things very wrong with it if you try
to think of it as a physical object.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 01:42 PM EST |
that describes something that could not be performed as a
thought process.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 02:44 PM EST |
| Here's a bunch of U.S. patents on arithmetic coding (a mathematical manipulation
of numbers which is a useful part of many data compression algorithms). This
list directly from
wikipedia, and all of them have expired... but its impossible to argue these
are not "patents on mathematical thought".
U.S. Patent 4,122,440 —
(IBM) Filed 4 March 1977, Granted 24 October 1978 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,286,256 —
(IBM) Granted 25 August 1981 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,467,317 —
(IBM) Granted 21 August 1984 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,652,856 —
(IBM) Granted 4 February 1986 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,891,643 —
(IBM) Filed 15 September 1986, granted 2 January 1990 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,905,297 —
(IBM) Filed 18 November 1988, granted 27 February 1990 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,933,883 —
(IBM) Filed 3 May 1988, granted 12 June 1990 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,935,882 —
(IBM) Filed 20 July 1988, granted 19 June 1990 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 4,989,000 —
Filed 19 June 1989, granted 29 January 1991 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 5,099,440 —
(IBM) Filed 5 January 1990, granted 24 March 1992 (Now expired)
U.S. Patent 5,272,478 —
(Ricoh) Filed 17 August 1992, granted 21 December 1993 (Now
expired)
They patent stuff like this:
A method and
means of arithmetic coding of conditional binary sources permitting
instantaneous decoding and minimizing the number of encoding operations per
iteration. A single shift and subtract operation for each encoding cycle can be
achieved if an integer valued parameter representative of a probability interval
embracing each source symbol relative frequency is used for string encoding and
control. If the symbol being encoded is the most probable, then nothing is added
to the arithmetic code string. However, an internal variable is updated by
replacing it with an augend amount. If the updated internal variable has a
leading zero, then both it and the code string are shifted left by one position.
If the symbol being encoded is the least probable, then a computed augend is
added to the code string and the code string is shifted by an amount equal to
the integer valued parameter.
These particular patents (and a
dozen more like them) held up progress in data compression algorithms and
compressed file formats for about 10 years. They were a strong disincentive to
innovation in that area, which didn't really resume until most of these patents
had expired. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- how about these? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 05:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 05:45 PM EST |
Do I become a machine infringing the mechanical device
patent?
I see trouble ahead for this school of thought.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
