|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
"No, its not. Changing a configuration of a printing press from one that
out puts the Bible to one that outputs 50 Shades of Gray is nothing like adding
a particular kind of spell checking function or adding a particular English to
Mongolian translating function or adding a voice to text function to a
computer."
This is a good illustration of a totally inadequate concept of
"like".
In both cases, what is being done is inserting "symbols" into a
"machine" designed to perform some particular operation on ANY set of
similar symbols regardless of their meaning.
The printer makes inked impressions on paper of whatever surface is inserted
into it. There isn't one kind of printer for "music", another for
"English", and another for "photographic engravings".
There's just one printer, which doesn't care whether it's printing music or
Cretan Linear B or Pine-cone cross-sections.
And, in exactly the same way, a theoretical Turing machine doesn't care what the
theoretical symbols "0" or "1" represent on its
theoretically infinite tape. They could be combined into groups to represent
IBM-360 machine-language instructions or finite-state transition tables or
Mongolian character-glyphs or sound wave samples....the Turing machine doesn't
care. It manipulates symbols according to simple logical patterns.
Player piano or Victrola or Jacquard Loom or Babbage's Analytical Machine or IBM
punch-card sorter, there's always a device that does something based on some
kind of physical representation of a symbol. The device is hardware. The
physical substrate holding the physical representation is media. The symbols are
logical abstractions--the stuff of which mathematics is made.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
it's like I said in my reply to the parent below. If you invent a new widget you
patent the WIDGET. You dont get to patent the CNC machine that makes it -
because you havent done anything to that machine, you've just applied its
existing capabilities to make something new.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
Is how to make and use the claimed invention adequately disclosed in the
specification. That is, after reading the specification, could one of ordinary
skill in the closest related art make and use the invention without undue
experimentation.
For example, if all that is disclosed is how to check and correct
capitalization, an if one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to
extrapolate the disclosure to detect and correct incorrect comma placement, then
a claim that is so broad as to cover comma correction would violate the written
description requirement and is rejected or is invalid.
If on the other hand, the specification describes how to test and correct all
aspects of grammar, then a broad claim is justified assuming the recited process
is new and not obvious.
Before someone says such an invention is merely computerizing that which was
previously done by other means, I would hope that everyone here knows that
getting a machine to do even that which a 2 year old can do is generally not
trivial.
Additionally, a review of the subject manifesto above (clearly written by
someone or someones of extremely high intelligence) and the posts discussing the
grammatical issues therein make it clear that there, to this day, remains a need
for a good grammar checker. I submit that if it were trivial or obvious to
create one, someone would have created one by now.
With regard to the issue of further improvements, yes, if all that was known was
the capitalization corrector, someone else could patent the comma checker. If
one or both of the parties then wanted then to sell a full featured grammar
checker the parties would then have to reach some sort of licensing agreement.
In this case it would probably be a cross licensing agreement: You can use my
invention if I can use yours...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
