|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
The difference here is that math is equivalent to its own description. Physical
objects are not. Software is a description of math, and as such, equivalent to
said calculation.
Also, saying that a program alters the function of a computer is like saying
that the route chosen by the driver alters the function of a car.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
Parent wrote:
The creation of a functional device utilizing the
patented parts of the formula is what is required to be infringing, not copying
a "patented formula".
This is correct in the sense that this is
how the law is.
Part of the software is math argument is that no such device
is ever made when a computer is programmed. The notion that such a device is
made is fictional computer science. The entire computer industry is held to the
legal consequences of this fiction.
Nowhere does that address why
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 really
find anything which did try and justify that.
This justification
has been provided when I wrote this.
For programmers the software
invention is not physical. It is an abstract method of manipulating abstractions
called symbols (the bits) pursuant to an algorithm which is further limited to
specific meanings assigned to the symbols.
This means the
justification is two-fold: first you can't patent a machine when the invention
is not a machine and no machine is being made, second there is abundant case law
that abstract ideas such as mathematical algorithms are not patentable.
I
will add to that many software patents are ultimately patents on the language of
mathematics because computations are part of this language. They are not
exterior to the language.
The parent writes this:
A big difficulty is that lawyers use a different computer 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 listen
to?
This is not a matter of viewpoints. Case law is stating as
true principles of computer science which are factually erroneous. We are not
talking about diverging opinions on the same set of facts. We are talking about
different and conflicting statements of the facts.
Computer scientists are
the experts in matters of computer science. The law is not free to use fictional
principles of computer science but it does.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
As for asking people from a different field what a computer is? out of naivety
they might have a different opinion to someone familiar with the intricacies and
theory behind computers. The problem with that is that computers do not care
about peoples opinions they operate the way they do regardless. Computer science
theories are well grounded and have stood the test of time, it only in the
virtual world of law where people can invent their own reality that there is
problem with these theories.
As for the software transforming the computer into a different machine, that
only happens in the mind of the user, every thing done by a computer is what is
was designed to do before any software was loaded. You are confusing and
abstract representation of a function with an actual function.
If you would like to give concrete examples of what you believe changes when a
particular piece of software is loaded I will endeavor to describe what is
actually happening.
A computer cannot do things that it was not designed to do meaning that it
cannot get new functionality just by loading software.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|