|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Technically, computers do not add "numbers", they add (sort
of) bits.
If I give you the pattern (of bits in hexadecimal)
0xffffffffffffffff
what "number" is that? Is it "-1" (assumes it is a two's
complement representation)?
Is it "-0" (one's complement)
Is it "9223372036854775807*2" (unsigned integer)
Is it ... pick your "number", it could be some floating
point representation, or something totally "out there"
I have to select particular instructions and tell the
computer how I'm interpreting the bits so it knows what I
mean by "add" numbers....and those instructions merely tell
the computer how to jiggle bits...it doesn't know that those
are numbers in any particular sense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
I have been thinking of an auto analogy to convince the judge and RAS of the
strength of the argument.
However, it occurs to me that the defence could be very straightforward.
Samsung should say that non of their software contains any of the instructions
in any of the patent claims. Further, Apple have offered no evidence that they
have ever used such instructions.
Any assertion that one can see that the software contains such instructions just
by looking at what the 'phone does cannot prevail because there is no evidence
that some other instructions that do something completely different, just appear
to fit the same concept, abstract idea or visible effect.
I seem to remember that the defendant does not have the duty in court to prove a
negative: the plaintiff must prove the positive. Apple must prove that Samsung
use the instructions in memory that are cited in the claims.
If our understanding is correct, this is a technical impossibility.
This defence should be good against any claims that encompass a memory
containing processor instructions in a computer. Someone else in this part of
the thread pointed out that the processor only manipulates symbols. It only adds
two numbers if a human being interprets the manipulation of symbols in that way.
The computer is not actually doing anything of the sort.
I cannot think of anything that might be claimed in a patent that can be
materially delivered by instructions in memory.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
