|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:19 AM EST |
Can Groklaw, or a group of members, file, against, using Polr's writtings?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST |
Check the brief in this comments title. This is an exposition of the software is
math argument that doesn't use the words "mathematics" and
"algorithms".
Instead they say if a procedure can be execute by a human with unlimited time
with pencil and paper then the procedure is abstract mental steps. But this is
exactly what a mathematical algorithm is. Instead of using the word algorithm
they use the long winded definition.
The instruction cycle of a computer meets this description. If such procedures
are held unpatentable without further conditions the courts have for all
practical purposes decided to endorse the software is math argument.
How such precedent would play out in practice remains to be seen. But this would
be a very positive development.
However the brief contains a pretty stupid error. They argue that if the
computations are very complex, to many calculations must be done in a given
amount of time, then the software is patentable.
Here is a challenge, does the addition of two real numbers with a precision of 1
trillion decimal patentable? The computations are too numerous to be done
without a computer. Or is a simple addition of 10 trillions small numbers
patentable because there are too many calculations to be done without a
computer? The too many calculation threshold doesn't pass basic notions of
mathematics.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
