|I agree with almost the entirety of your original comment, although find I've
not got my point across to which you most recently replied.
say conflation of definitions because I believe you are attributing to the
software the honor that belongs to the hardware!
Patent law makes
no such distinction. Stallman points out that clever patent practitioners can
and will overcome any such distinction.
No. I do not consider software ports novel. The point I
was attempting to make is that neither is your special purpose calculator by
contrast. My previous comment should otherwise line up with the second para of
your foot note.
1: You consider the
idea to have software ports novel. I consider the idea to have software ports
obvious once the hardware was adapted to allow for a concept already
To take that a step further, I'd say once the public learned you can
take any informational process and automate it via the means of a computer - any
application of software (even on physical processes yet to come where the
designers realize they're just processing information) are blindingly
The only other point of disagreement with your original
comment is limited to your belief that Stallman's proposal couldn't work. I
consider the ability for it to work limited by political process. Also you're
example of a special purpose calculator isn't novel, other than as exercises in
hardware description languages calculators today are microprocessor based and
virtual hardware isn't novel either.
There is only one way software
addresses patentable subject matter, through the transformation of matter,
otherwise the only product is abstract ideas (e.g. signals of transient
duration). We likewise see the novelty of 'on a computer' as lacking through
saturation, though we're now seeing a spate of 'it can't be done anywhere but on
a computer' or on a computer having specific properties (as in having software
to perform particular functions) showing up in litigation.
Software can't be
patented per se and Stallman's proposal has the effect of preventing the
class of matter transformation effects that encloses transformation of magnetic
reluctance, e.g. hysteresis patterns on disk platters or alignment of
crystalline structures or positioning of doping hole traps (FPGAs, FLASH, etc.)
by exemption when performed on a general purpose computer, where these
transformations are the equivalent of subsequently recording a mental process
results with pencil and paper. The overall purpose to prevent the patenting of
abstract ideas through semantic antics by association with a computer when a
computer would be the first choice of implementation anyway.
It's a Ferengi
Rules of Acquisition problem. Where there is no profit there is no incentive to
play creative semantic games. I've yet to meet a lawyer who will do so for
recreation, although you get lawyers and law professors doing so for purposes of
recognition just as we get slightly differing ideologies arguing dialectic
differences as here or in say a Monty Python skit.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]