|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
| Here's Bitlaw's ex
planation of the law
after the US Supreme Court ruled in In Re
Bilski. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
| Sorry. Forgot the url. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 03:44 AM EDT |
Well, that was the question that I originally started off
with.
Gene's original argument was that if you uninstall your
browser software from a computer, the computer can now no
longer perform the browser function; thus the browser
software makes the computer a new and useful machine. I said
that, if I remove my Daft Punk CD from a CD player it can
now no longer play Daft Punk. Does that mean the CD makes
the CD player a new and useful machine?
And through 125 replies, I received a lot of insults,
insinuations about my intelligence or hatred for US
business, but still not a cogent argument why those two are
fundamentally different things. The closest they got was the
patent law doctrine that printed matter/music does not
constitute usefulness.
Finally, Gene allowed that it is the act of "installing"
software which creates a different machine. Considering how
abstract the concept of installation is, that inserting a
disk could very well be considered installation depending on
how you implement your storage system, and that code that
isn't installed can still be executed, I still don't see a
practical reason for this distinction.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
Robert Heinlein wrote a story Door into Summer in 1957, where he
described among other things, a CAD system, and what we now know as
the Rumba Vacuum cleaner. The story was very much concerned about
patents.
However it was the device which was patented, not the training of the
device to perform an action. So, in my humble, non-legal opinion, the
general purpose computer can be patented, but training it to perform
any particular task is not a thing as such, and should not be patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
