You also leave out the fact that when she said:
There is no
"across machines" in the definition
... that she clearly provided
link to this
definition.
You are then conflating her further statements of her own
opinions on the topic as a whole as part of the definition response.
So,
let's put everything in one tidy place. The quote P.J. had an issue with
is:
"Software is all about the implementation of a function across
machines."
I am a software developer of 18 years. I also have
similar issues with P.J. to that statement. Especially in light of the fact
that a number of software patents have been issued which do not extend
across machines.
You state:
PJ assumes that the author is
saying that
software is machines
I'm afraid that is your error.
You are assuming what her assumptions are. Let me clarify how I read what she
wrote that you appear to find issue with. Her full authoring surrounding where
you claim to have issue is:
There is no "across machines" in the definition. No
wonder the USPTO gets things wrong all the time, if patent lawyers tell them
things like this. Software is instructions telling a computer what to do,
algorithms and data.* There is no machine in there. There could be "across
machines" functionality, I suppose, in a sense if I use an application to upload
something to your server, for example, but that's not the basic definition of
software.
So... how did I understand it:
There is no
"across machines" in the
definition.
This is refering to the statement itself that she
had issue with.
No wonder the USPTO gets things wrong all the time,
if patent lawyers tell them things like this.
This is clearly her
own opinion on why she thinks the patent lawyers are erring when they
communicate with the USPTO. She is already deviating in communication from the
definition provided and her definition in response. In other words, the context
is now expanding. It has expanded to what Patent Lawyers tell the
USPTO.
Software is instructions telling a computer what to do,
algorithms and data.*
This is a simpler clarification of the
definition of software.
There is no machine in
there.
This is a statement responding to something else Patent
Lawyers have been saying. In other words, it moved from the context of the
definition into the context of what Patent Lawyers argue with regards
software.
Admittedly, this is only understood if one has been following
Groklaw for some time and have paid attention to what some Patent Lawyers that
post on Groklaw have been trying to argue.
Now here's the magic
question:
Can you admit that you made an assumption about what you believed
"P.J. was assuming"?
If so, then it's easy to wipe the slate clean and
realize this whole thread was just one big mis-understanding. Us long-timers
have been responding to your statements in one context because our own
assumptions (which would have been incorrect) of your response was based on the
understanding I outlined above. Which in turn appears to have been based on
your misunderstanding of what you viewed as P.J.'s assumptions in the very
enclosed finite context of the definition while P.J. had already spoken to
greater context beyond the definition.
RAS
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
