|Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT|
|If the argument is "show me the machine", you need to start |
with the definition of "machine", which I did in replying to
the sibling of the post to which I'm now replying.
Your Reductio ad Absurdam argument doesn't work.
" If changing bits
in a computer make a new machine, then no computer can run
software because as
soon as an instruction is executed, some bits are modified
and this is no longer
the same computer."
No, all you've proven is that more than one "machine" is
created while the program executes. It's empirically
demonstrable that computers can run software; that has
nothing to do with how many "machines" are involved.
I concede it's a surprising result to say that software
typically creates thousands of "new machines" every second,
but that won't trouble a lawyer too much. The law has had
little opportunity to consider the question in such a stark
example, but by my reading, existing law says that a single
patent can cover more than one machine. One could take the
view that if inventing a single machine is patentable, then
*a fortiori* inventing millions of machines is "more
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]