|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 09:15 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 10:52 PM EST |
The "bounce" is just an illusion.
And yes, I can do all the work it takes to create the illusion in my mind.
And in my opinion any competent programmer can as well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:18 PM EST |
> Which in itself is a problem. OTOH, most human beings
> cannot, through thought alone, make the screen bounce.
The screen doesn't "bounce". The screen emits light representing some
moving picture. A human watching the screen will perceive the picture as
bouncing but without human perception this notion of bouncing doesn't apply.
The bounce patent involves an element of semantics. The picture is seen as
bouncing. What is the difference between this and a patent on a process of
displaying the output of a security camera monitoring a sensitive place? We can
certainly claim a programmed computer reading an input from a camera and
displaying it remotely. What is the difference between this and a bounce
patent?
I see this type of claims as the combination of two abstract ideas. One is the
abstract algorithm in the computer. The other is in the understanding of the
data a human would derive when watching the output. The hardware play the role
of a substrate for semantically meaningful information.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
