|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
There is a problem with what you suggest. The judges and lawyers believe the
algorithm as described in a flow chart is the implementation details they need.
They will counter, like Lemley and president Obama did, by saying "let's
require them to detail the algorithm". This is the whole point of banning
pure functional claiming. Then you are stuck with explaining why an algorithm is
not the implementation details you want to disclose and why an algorithm would
not do.
This is not a simpler argument. And how do you convince them that patents are
bad when the issue is how much details there is in the patent? People will just
say "let's require the necessary details", and then the discussion
will shift to which details are appropriate. This implicitly assumes software is
patented.
My personal argument would be different. I would point out that software patents
are covering abstract procedures for manipulating symbols with meanings. They
are not patents on the physical machine. The legal theory is that they are
patents on the machine, but this is a misunderstanding of computer science. The
courts are patenting something which is different from what they think they
patent.
This view is the gist of the software is math argument. It is easy to
understand. It shows the root of the error. It implicitly asks "do we
really want to patent this soft of things?"
It also help explains why there are thousands of patentable functions in
software. Text is organized in sentences. They aggregate into paragraphs, and
then into chapters etc. If we require authors to search a central database for
each sentence and each combination of sentences to make sure their work doesn't
infringe on the work of other authors no one will be able to write a novel.
There will be way too many searches.
I think this view is simple, compelling and easy to understand. The hard part is
to convince the Courts and Congress that the new machine theory of computer
programming is plain false, and that computers really work with symbols that
have meanings. This is where the technical details matter. We can't help but
explain them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
I like to think that the exceptional teacher can figure out the different
ways to get through to multiple students and then explain the same thing in the
multiple ways so all students end up learning the concepts in the
material.
Meanwhile... the exceptional student will be able to learn the
concepts in the material no matter how the teacher instructs it.
It's a
reality that we don't all think/learn the same way. Even two people with
exactly the same experiences and education can easily view the same thing
different from each other.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
