|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:00 AM EST |
The use of a computer is essential or else the offers would go past their
sell-by date and the profit-making deals would not be made.
Define Computer.
Is it
a) An electronic device comprising of numerous transistors and peripherals,
performing a predefined instruction cycle.
b) A contrivance consisting of a number of glass tubes containing ants with
peripherals, performing a predefined instruction cycle.
c) A mechanical device consisting of bras rods and drums with peripherals,
performing a predefined instruction cycle.
d) A room containing one or more humans each equipped with paper, pencils and
erasers, performing a predefined instruction cycle.
e) Any of the above.
Note that all of these can be made faster by adding more resources to the
'computer'. Also note that what is being patented here, the software, is
identical in every case.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to limit their futures with
bogus patents.
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:00 AM EST |
My whole point is that trying to invalidate software patents because the
computer isn't essential to the task will not work in the general case, because
a computer, or something like a computer, is essential in some cases.
(I'm using "essential" instead of "necessary" in this post
for reasons which should become clear shortly.)
In other words, the idea of the computer not being essential is not sufficient
to invalidate all software patents.
Your point is that Bilski shows that even some patents where a computer is an
essential component are invalid.
Take these two points together, and in order to invalidate software patents, it
is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that a computer is an essential part
of the patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|