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.
I doubt it
Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
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".
Both of those are pure math. Until they are used in applications. Interestingly, a mathematician might view 1+1=2 as purer math, because it is in some ways more fundamental, while a layman might view the area calculation as purer math, because it uses what is normally thought of as more abstract symbology (certainly algebra is normally taught in school well after simple addition), and 1+1=2 is an example of the kind of calculation that routinely goes on when one is applying math.
You also don't seem to understand what a computer does in performing computations. Learn a little assembly coding.
That's funny. I've been writing in assembly language since 1977. 8080/Z80, X86, 68K, 8051, ARM, TI DSP, StarCore DSP, etc. As you point out, I obviously don't know what I'm doing, but please don't tell that to my employer.
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...
Yes, I've actually done that too. On designs that shipped millions of parts.
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.
I honestly don't understand your complaint here. If we take it as gospel that the purpose of patents is to teach in exchange for a limited-time monopoly, isn't the teaching done best if done at the correct level of abstraction? Don't get me wrong, too many patents are way too abstract, and claim the universe without actually teaching anything useful, but when I teach about how things worked, I always strive to do so at a level that imparts general, reusable knowledge.
Btw, PolR wasn't patenting a book.
Right. He claims it is "a novel" not a book. And that is yet another subtle distinction that makes his writing hard to read. Is the novel the story? Or is the novel the story embedded in the book? When I say "that was a really good book" am I really just talking about the ink and the pages, or am I talking about what PolR means when he says "novel?"

"Novel" in this context is fairly unambiguous, but "book" in this context is exceedingly ambiguous, and it is normal human behavior to refer to what I think PolR is calling a novel as a book. Either that, or he has repurposed the term novel to mean something different than most people mean when they discuss a novel. In which case, he should have no complaints about how people don't understand his new use of an old, well-understood word.

[ 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 )