|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:25 AM EST |
PoIR hit the nail on the head when he said "Symbols" is the
magic-vodoo of software patents. When you allow math to represent symbols the
trouble starts. Amazon's one click patent is nothing more than sending a file
over the internet which has been done many times but allow symbols and you
magically have a button that when clicked with a mouse orders and pays for and
ships an item in an Amazon or affiliate's warehouse. Computers present the
person behind the keyboard with a symbol that represents some math, operates
some math, then presents the results of that math back to the (some) person with
a different symbol(s).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST |
IANAL, but I am nearly certain I remember reading that
courts have allowed software patents because they believe
that when a program is loaded into memory, the general
purpose computer is transformed into a specialized machine,
and this specialized machine is what is patent-eligible (as
opposed to the software algorithms themselves). This could
well be a different concept from the "machine-or-
transformation test" as described in Room 101 (er, rule 101,
or whatever that squiggly thing means).
Puns aside, is this general->specific transformation
argument just something I have dreamed up, or did I really
read about it? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:16 PM EST |
Data can be specifically identified by indicating what the data
represents
Yah. "Indicating what the data represents". Requiring
something EXTERNAL
to the computer. Meaning that the data does not
represent anything specific
within the context of the computer! Until a
user interprets the data, it's just
an abstraction, signifying
nothing.
----------------------
Oh, you must want Room 9. This is Room
9-A -- ABUSE![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|