|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST |
I've worked with computers my entire adult life.
From the earliest teachings, a computer is nothing but an arithmetic processor
carrying out boolean algebra.
And the mathematics of boolean algebra dictate that it is abstract. Hence all
computations done, or can be done, on a computer can be done by a human using
nothing but pencil and paper for an extended memory, and his mind.
For the longest time, we were required to "work it out on paper" then
write the program, then "work it out on paper" when didn't match.
Programming is nothing but applied mathematics...
and the mathematics is not patentable.
Nothing says mathematics is patentable only when it is done fast. Speed is not
an aspect of math.
Is doing math fast useful? sure. But that still doesn't make it a patentable
subject - it is still just abstract mathematics.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:52 PM EST |
How is it wrong?
Computers deal with 1's and 0's - add, subtract, apply
boolean logic (math). They do it VERY FAST, but that's what
they do. All it is is math.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:25 AM EST
- Then you understand that mathematics is an abstract concept - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:52 AM EST
- So is physics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST
- If you understand computation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- Sure, you can simulate what a computer does with your mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 02:52 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Hardware is NOT software - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EST
- Who is arguing that software by itself should be patentable? - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:29 PM EST
- You're missing the simulation point - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:34 AM EST
- not exactly. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 AM EST
- That is due to the recurseive observation.. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:17 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- you reminded me of a standard challenge. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:33 AM EST
- 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
- I doubt it - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No I'm not - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:02 PM EST
|
|
|
|
