|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:33 AM EST |
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?
Any application. If it's used in an application,
it's applied, no? :-)
I think you have a problem. You are wrong.
You don't understand the difference between pure and applied maths. Compare and
contrast 1+1=2 and "area of a rectangle = width x height".
You also don't
seem to understand what a computer does in performing computations. Learn a
little assembly coding.
I think you make more of software than what it is.
Whilst software is complex, it is simple enough that a 10 year old could learn,
quite quickly, how to make programs of 100+ lines. I've seen it done. Building
the logic to produce a working processor (that would be able to do more than
just add and subtract) and then building the processor... That's something I've
not seen done by a 10 year old.
The computers (running simulations) are
taking data in, processing it then outputting data. The processing of the data
is the same. They are not creating anything special, just numbers which are
then output to a file (as in data which is stored in memory or registers which
may be associated with other similarly stored data) which may eventually be sent
to a printer, screen or elsewhere. In Diehr the file (possibly 1 bit in size)
was sent to a switch stopped the curing process which actually produced
something - note that if the mold on the machine changed that did not mean
another patent could be taken out on the machine. Just like the 2 identical
cafetieres are taking water and either tea leaves or ground coffee as input then
outputting flavoured water. The actions performed by the computers is the same.
They are equivalent. This should mean that they read upon the claims of the
hardware.
The two machines you describe would probably be the
same, but would probably not infringe on Apple's patent. The doctrine of
equivalents has to read on the claims. The claims will probably state something
about a two dimensional image. Bingo -- your 8x1 device would not infringe.
I'm not happy with your answer since you don't seem to direct it
at the scenario I gave but perhaps that's my fault for not being more specific.
The bounce action was chosen because the USPTO seemed to think it was
patentable. Any action you can think of with a strip of 8 LEDs could have been
chosen. I was asking you to compare the WDR computer + LEDs with the Samsung
Android phone + LEDs. Basically the WDR and the Samsung are sending the same
signal to the LED strip to light the lights in the same order and timing. IANAL
so it's not going to be like a real patent but it should be close enough and its
not complete - claim 5 onwards doesn't really matter and would just go on to
describe the bounce effect.
Claim 1 - a structure comprising; a LED
strip with 8 LED lights in a row, an integrated chip forming an interface to the
LED strip, a machine capable of performing computations connected to the LED
interface
Claim 2 - the computing machine sends signals to the LED interface
to light the first 3 bulbs
Claim 3 - the computing machine sends signals to
the LED interface to simultaneously turn off bulb 1 and light bulb 4, then after
a preset time period turn off bulb 2 and light bulb 5 so moving the lights down
the strip.
Claim 4 - the computing machine sends signals to the LED
interface to simultaneously turn off bulb 2 and light bulb 5, then after a
preset time period turn off bulb 2 and light bulb 5 so moving the lights further
down the strip.
Claim 5 - on lighting bulbs 6, 7 and 8, blah blah
blah.
Both machines run their software and create the same resulting
"bounce". This "bounce" is supposedly patentable so, to repeat my question, are
both machines the same because of the doctrine of equivalents? They are making
the LEDs do the same thing. They follow my patent. So they are the same
machine? The doctrine of equivalents has its place but do you see how stupid
the result is when applying it to this sort of situation? 2 entirely different
machines when hooked up to the same peripheral have been made to make the
peripheral do the same thing. This is a problem which neither the Courts nor
the USPTO seem able to understand. So what if the doctrine of equivalents reads
on the claims? The claims claim a computing device without specifying the
computing device. This means that all computing devices are equivalent from
Intel's 4004 to an IBM Blue Gene irrespective of whether it the software has
been coded in actual 0's and 1's, in assembler or python, etc.
There is no
single problem with software patents. There are many. I'm not sure your
definition of objective
coincides with mine so I can't agree that your arguments against software
patents can be done objectively. I take software = mathematics as a fact
therefore I think that argument can be made objectively. I know you disagree,
but hey, life wouldn't be fun if we all thought the same.
Btw, PolR wasn't
patenting a book.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:59 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: bprice on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:52 AM EST
- No, I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:51 AM EST
|
|
|
|
