|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:24 AM EST |
All that is relevant is that the computation is abstract.
That is all it should take to invalidate such patents.
Mathematics is abstract. Carrying out mathematical operations is also abstract.
The DEVICE carrying out those operations is patentable though. Hence, the
patents on CPUs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 04:30 PM EST |
A computer is UNNECESSARY TO THE PATENT if it can be done in your head.
(Actually, that's not true - if you're doing it in your head you are still doing
it on a computer - an old-fashioned human computer :-)
That is the point. If the computation is so slow that the results are useless,
so be it. Calculating the trades in Bilski can be done in your head - that is
unpatentable. The fact that by the time you've done it in your head the traders
have gone away is nothing to do with the patent ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|