|
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
No. The idea of a patent is to cover a way of accomplishing a task. So
I don't, for instance, patent smelting iron into steel, I patent a way of
smelting iron. What the ruling says is that this patent goes beyond covering
just a way of doing something, it tries to cover all ways of doing
something. And that's not permitted. You can get a monopoly on how to do
something, but not a monopoly on doing that something. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
The Supremes have made their position quite clear:
Abstract concepts are
not patentable subject matter!
Software = Abstract therefore Software is
not patentable subject matter.
However, reality is very different so it's
altogether possible both of our opinions are (or will be) wrong.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
The flaw in your flaw is that "blocking the world from using this very
particular technique" as you inaptly describe it, is not why the patent was
denied.
The patent was denied because it included no patentable invention. Blocking the
technique was merely a noted side effect of improperly granting such a patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- You are mistaken - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:06 AM EDT
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
{
NO! It wouldn't. Everyone can still use the old technique of rounding the result
instead of the operands.
}
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, rounding before calculation is done by
anyone using a slide rule. With a slip stick, you are limited to about 3
digits, when you start, when you're done and at every step of the calculation.
Oh, I forgot, this is one of those special "with a computer" cases.
;-)
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|