|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:10 AM EST |
| And that's one good reason why MS isn't going after Google directly. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:56 AM EST |
If they would understand their CS and engineering, that
would make this issue simple. The "transformation" test
could remain - I would accept that software can be
patentable if and only if it transforms a general purpose
machine into a special purpose, patentable machine - because
that is *not* how computers work. Ergo, no software causes
such a transformation, ergo no software is patentable.
This "transformation" is a fiction conceived by legal brains
to accommodate software patentability. It is simply an
illusion resulting from insufficient understanding of the
technology. Computers follow instructions - that is all
they do, and (importantly) it is impossible for them to do
anything else.
IANAL, but I believe the legal term is "error of fact".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:34 AM EST |
If the idea is that a "computer + program" creates a new machine,
it
should be recognized that a "computer + data" also produces a new
machine.
Should not then (to be consistent) "data" be considered
patentable subject
matter?
""computer+program" creates new machine" idea is based on
the obsolete analogue computer of distant memory, where to run a new program,
say to change an air-speed indicator to something else entirely, you needed to
remake the device.
As digital computers are general purpose algorithmic
devices that simulate a new device with every new algorithm - and as algorithms
are constructs of mathematical logic - it follows that the ""computer+program"
creates new machine" idea is about as relevant as asking how to restring a
trombone, asking about the embouchure needed to play the violin, or "what's the
difference between a duck? One of its feet are both the same!"
'nuff
sed?
Wesley Parish [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST |
Way back, years ago, a lawyer convinced a bunch of computer illiterate morons
that programming a computer created a "new machine." Unfortunately,
the morons in question were the appointed judges on the CAFC. So now the law of
the land is that adding or removing a handful of electrons in a memory cell
creates a "new machine" and we are stuck with the consequences.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
