Where we end up discussing pointless semantic complications that no longer
have any bearing on the heart of the discussion.
So - straight clear
question - do we agree on the statement:
Speed does not impart
patentability
That's my position with the heart of the discussion being 101
patent eligible subject matter.
If we agree on that, then great - all
we're doing is arguing what can be differentiated as semantics after that
point.
:)
On the semantics - I disagree with your assertion that
"speed is a necessary component of the object".
The primary reason is
that the sentence would indicate someone could "add speed to a device". But
that's not how engineering actually works. One "adds power to the device
through some form of physical exertion such as wheels turning or liquid
propulsion". This addition then applies power which moves the object faster
which we can then measure.
But one does not add "speed" to anything. If
you think anyone does, then I challenge you to point to "speed" in the machine.
And I really do expect you to point to "speed". Not the measurement of the
machine (car) as it's traveling... not the specific component that is imparting
the energy (engine to wheels) in order to "go faster" - but "speed"
itself.
Put in context of a computer is no different then the more
commonly known vehicle example above. "Speed in a computer" comes in the form
of the engineers finding ways to:
A: allow the electricity to "flow faster"
- examples include using less resistent materials that are more conductive,
shrinking the paths so they are shorter, etc.
and
B: in a sense -
finding shortcuts in the math so the processes are fewer - for example by
multiplying 5 by 10 in one step instead of adding 5 together 10 times
So
while I would agree that sufficient speed/force is required to lift a rocket
into space. It is the physical rocket design wherein the engine used provides
sufficient energy in order to acquire the necessary speed/force. You don't
"build speed into the device".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
