|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM EST |
I had wondered about a room full of math professors to do the statistical
analysis. Then one would need a room full of folk surfing the interweb to get
the offer and user data.
I don't think a room of human computers and data gatherers would work. Perhaps,
not even a university's worth.
I think it needs one or more (in claims terms: a multiplicity) of those
electronic general purpose computers based on Von Neumann architecture with
specially written software to both collect the data and do the math. It would
also require an internet connection and a subscription to the services
publishing the offers and some other way of automating the gathering of the
power users energy requirements by time and amount.
I'm not convinced that a useful implementation could be achieved, even then.
The fact remains that general purpose electronic computers with suitable network
connections and software would be essential to make the invention useful.
Nevertheless, it is unpatentable abstract ideas.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:20 PM EST |
But this has nothing to do with the invention! Just because the RESULTS of the
invention are useless is irrelevant.
If I carry out the Bilski invention in my head (and I can) I will come up with
the EXACT SAME match of sellers and buyers. The fact that I've taken so long to
do the maths that both seller and buyer are six foot under is irrelevant.
As has been pointed out many times before, your argument boils down to patenting
"doing it faster", and that should be unpatentable as being downright
obvious! One only has to look at weather forcasting as a perfect example of
where people knew exactly what to do, they were just waiting for hardware to get
faster such that they could calculate faster than reality could execute.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
