Does a lawyer define "machine" as "a device that does one thing", so changing software under that definition does indeed create a "new machine" as the created device does something different to the non programmed machine and the machine with different software?

Obviously that is the rational. It is how they sneak around the fact that software is totally abstract, and therefore unpatentable. However, it is crass sophistry. There is no new machine created. The machine already anticipated the use to which it was put. The machine was invented long ago, as a general purpose computer. Putting software on it does not change it. It remains a general purpose computer.

I can't understand your comment. It seems as if you support this notion that lawyers should be able to bend reality to serve their purpose. If you believe that, you are a part of the problem. The above issue has been well discussed by others, even learned judges, far more eloquently than I. See Groklaw's pages on "Software is Mathematics for further edification.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]