decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I doubt it | 443 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That is due to the recurseive observation..
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:17 AM EST
And mathematicians do that all the time.

Sometimes it takes several iterations... "I know i've seen that
somewhere.." and they look through their notes...

Hence the "runaway computation" gets interrupted.

Or their wife/secretary calls... and they have to start over :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I doubt it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST
Perhaps not, but I've met a few who could do with being booted...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I doubt it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
Interesting concept...

Made me think about a diabetic requiring a regular insulin injection. I'm comparing the insulin injection to the reboot. I guess it depends on your definition of reboot. Of course it's not the same, but then few things are when you cross boundaries from machine to animal.

I'm not a mathematician, but then I don't think you are either, so I'd like you to tell me what application of 1+1=2 makes that into applied maths?

You talk about the doctrine of equivalents however the problem I think you have is that you do not extend it as far as you should be doing. Consider that we both have similarly built computers running the same OS. My computer running my software (a ballistics simulation of firing a gun) is equivalent to your computer running your software (a simulation to create an optimal drill bit design) irrespective of the fact that computer+software produce different outputs. Our computers run the same set of instructions (that is CISC/RISC/whatever). They are actually doing the same things down at the minutest level - manipulating bits.

We could then look at another pair of computers, one is a WDR-1-Bit-Computer, the other is some ARM jobby, lets say a Samsung Android phone since we love them. 2 really different machines. Both are hooked up, whichever way you want, to a simple LED board which has 8 x 1 LED bulbs. I personally wouldn't be able to do it (at the moment) but I'm pretty sure that some clever programmer would easily be able to create the bounce effect on an "image" of 3 bulbs lit which then "move" along the board to the end then, with the right timing, show 2 bulbs, 1 bulb then bounce back to show 2 bulbs then 3 bulbs. They are special purpose machines that do the same thing so doesn't that mean that the doctrine of equivalents would tell you that these are the same machine? Are they?

The doctrine of equivalents would also tell you that 2 similar cafetiere's (ie French press), one with coffee the other with tea, are the same even though they produce different drinks when you put hot water in then (after a few minutes) pour out the resulting liquid. Or should that be 2 different cafetiere's, both with coffee, are the same because they both produce coffee?

The doctrine of equivalents doesn't work with software.

You seem to think that a 3d printer is a useful object that you can relate to.

Aside from the 3d printer and the reel of plastic, the thing that distinguishes what kind of item rolls off the printer is pure math, just like pure math and ink and paper define what kind of book gets printed. And the resultant item can easily be patentable.
It's a silly question to ask you because I think I know your answer. Is the 3d printer a different 3d printer because it produces something different? If the only thing that distinguishes one 3d printer which produces a sphere from a 3d printer that produces a cube is pure maths and pure maths is abstract then where is your doctrine of equivalents now? You may say that my points are silly but I don't care. I'm right. (This isn't necessarily correct in all instances. I'm just parodying your answers to certain points that PolR mentioned which appear to be quite petulant. I can't pretend to understand everything that PolR has posted previously but everything he has said that I understand I do agree with. In those previous posts PolR did provide logical explanations and links which supported what he stated. You provide no links to evidence for your assertions in this discussion and I can't remember what previous points you may have raised in other discussions on this subject so you do start from a worse position with your point of view.)

I think PolR argues software=maths etc because those that the things that he knows about and can argue about with expertise based on fact and logic. Arguing for the things that you want the focus to be on are things which are subjective and, in some cases, are already being done poorly by the USPTO.

j

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I doubt it
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
I'm sure you've met people who needed debugging :-)

But read Feynman for a great example of that sort of computing :-) including
self-correcting programs and parallel processing. In the EARLY 40s.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )