|
|
|
| Authored by: Balance on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Ah, the gnashing of teeth, it is like castanets. Perhaps a flamenco would be in
order?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
While I shutter to think about the Supreme Court taking on a
patent issue I think it is virtually inevitable in this
case. (Emphasis is mine.) Learn to proofread, Mr.
Quinn.
How is the Patent Office supposed to process this
decision? By not issuing patents where it can be done with pen and
paper, but merely faster with a computer.
How are patent examiners
supposed to apply this monstrosity? See directly
above.How are patent practitioners supposed to write patent
applications covering these important innovations? What innovations
would those be? Don't write bogus patent applications.
There, now, that
wasn't so hard, was it, Mr. Quinn?---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a
"taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
Maybe by defaulting to "DENIED" wrt. software?
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
| look upon it as a chance to find gainful employment. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
The tears are delicious.
Here's Gene's evaluation of Alan Turing (emphasis
mine):
I don’t think it is helpful to perpetuate the myth that all
software can be done by a paper and pencil. That is simply false. I
don’t care what supposedly great mathematician or computer scientists came up
with that nonsense. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
This is what I heard while skimming his article:
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
Th
is is my reaction to reading PJ's article:
http://yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.com/
Yes, I am excited.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
Though it may be only an undercurrent.
There is one entry that called my attention to it "These machines will soon
be smarter than us."
I can't otherwise put my finger on exactly why most refuse to recognize that the
abstraction called mathematics exist and is non-patentable.
One research application I wish IBM would look at is whether Watson could handle
the legal profession...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
