|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
Thankyou for the analogy with 'player piano' or 'programmable
loom'. That really helped with the way that I'm thinking about
this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
just like the amiga(?) that was wheeled into court to show prior art to destroy
a patent someone faced with the other party claiming the software creates a new
invention/machine from a general purpose computer should wheel in a player piano
with two rolls and ask if there are three machines there: one without any roll
and one each for the different rolls.
The only problem is that I suspect their lawyer *would* say they are three
machines...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
I've added the player piano/loom analogy to
the article. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
| I recall in previous
discussions on this topic we have been told that the "make a new machine"
doctrine is a legal fiction and the good judges know programming a computer
doesn't actually make a new machine.
It seems that these people are wrong.
Reading Rader, it is quite clear that him and some of his colleagues intend the
new machine doctrine to be taken as an accurate description of technology: (bold
added)
[A] computer programmed to perform a specific function is a
new machine with individualized circuitry created and used by the operation
of the software. See Alappat , 33 F.3d at 1545. The combination of machine
and software “creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in
effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform
particular functions pursuant to instructions from program soft- ware.”
In a stored program computer there is no individualized circuitry
created in the manner because instructions are executed one at the time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
