decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Precisely | 429 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Precisely
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 10:40 AM EST

You state:

Charge is more correct for DRAM, but voltage is more correct for SRAM and registers.
As well as:
But your case about them all being arbitrary signs is spot on.
And that is exactly it: depending on the specific tech the "arbitrary signs" are physically embodied in different ways. Such as a magnetic field, or a laser burn, or the voltage or charge. What is an "arbitrary sign"? It's an abstract interpretation of a physical value. Nothing more - or less - then language. The abstract interpretation that when you see a block with a "A" on it you interpret that to have the meaning of the letter A.

I just wish my fellow techs would remember to mention how the underlying message affects how they are correcting my representation:

    Software is nothing more - or less - then an abstract language interpreted from a physical state - a physical state which primarily1 exists in the form of 2 embodiments!
Because really - the fact I mention one or two of the 72 different ways the physical embodiment exists does not alter the core message.


1) I'm aware of research labs working on other embodiments of computers. Looking to alter the basic binary state computers work in to a larger set of representations. If that bears fruit - it'll still be abstract language interpretation but become even more complicated for the fast talkers to show as "magic".

2) I can list 7 of those embodiments off the top of my head and I'm absolutely positive I'm not aware of the full set of representations. This set includes the "hole" vs "no hole" representation that used to exist in the form of punch cards. Punch card hole vs a charge.... the software is still embodied as an abstract interpretation. An "arbitrary sign" - and no, not the physical kind of sign. How's that for another opening for the fast talkers, we're arguing over the particular physical embodiment while that has no bearing on the fact that software is abstract and does not exist in physical form:

    Oh oh oh oh oh: it's physically embodied in a different physical state, the software devs say so, we can patent it all over again for the new physical state!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )