|Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT|
|No, the OP is not. Code would be akin to the blueprints of
of the rocket and
protectable by copyright, but not patents.
It is not until you transform the
"story" into a functional
existance (be it a rocket or a "program") that the
of "patentability" and "Software is Math" begins.
Here is the
problem with PoIR's comments...
The formulas describe
things. First, they describe the rocket and its motion.
This is patentable despite being described by math. Second,
the same formulas
describe the computations the engineer
must do when computing his mathematical
model of the rocket.
This comes to two different conclusions when
not...the "formulas" are not what are patentable (even
may be filed with, be required for, and explain
the patent). The creation of a
device utilizing the patented parts of the formula is what
required to be infringing, not copying a "patented
formula". Until then, it
is just a mathematical formula
describing a rocket in motion (and may be only
by copyright). Then he goes on to talk about the formulas
computations and that they are a math model. So? It
isn't patentable either
and it's only
protection might be copyright. Nowhere does that address
utilization of parts of this formula, once made into a
functional device (i.e.
a software program), should not be
patentable just as with the first formula.
Because it is
"computations" is not a justification and nowhere could I
find anything which did try and justify that.
Another issue seems to
A big difficulty is that lawyers use a different
science than programmers
While those are in fact two viewpoints,
they are by no means
he ONLY two viewpoints. Go ask a high level (PHD, NASA,
etc...) mathematician, chemist, and mechanical engineer, et
al their opinion
of this and you will get as many opinions
as types of people you ask depending
on who their specialty
views the world. Not sure why CS is the one we should
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]