|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:18 AM EST |
>And using an existing device in a new and inventive manner
>is not itself a new invention.
In all fairness, I don't believe the point about the space shuttle example is
about re-purposing existing hardware but rather about using a computer to
achieve a physical change in a way that has either not been done before or is a
distinct improvement over an existing implementation.
>Or more accurately, the only thing software can do is
>exercise the general purpose computing device in the manner
>for which it was exactly designed to be used.
Yes, computers are general purpose calculation engines designed to perform
calculations quickly and have the ability to be able to trigger actions in the
physical world. I believe all the other poster is saying is that you must
respect the computer's ability to help perform physical effects that are either
impossible or impractical without them.
Could you design a specific machine to perform the same calculations? Yes, but
that isn't necessarily relevant. The patent in this case would really involve
documenting the physical changes a computer has helped to achieve. In the case
of space shuttles, I think the fast corrections are real physical changes. In
the case of bounceback, the argument that pixels on the screen are
lighting/changing color and causing the appearance of movement seems bogus.
This is what monitors are for - displaying and manipulating images. Should they
be patentable? Yes, in their own right (array of lightbulbs, CRT, LCD, etc),
but not as part of a computer aided patent that just lights the pixels at the
right time, etc.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
