|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
>But I ... think that there can be a set of instructions for
a general purpose computer that causes it to perform a
process ... that does something it wasn't capable of"
That's logically impossible. I think you're trying to use a
"no true Scotsman" approach to the problem. You don't have
the words to convey what you mean by "something new" (or to
be unkind about it, you haven't thought about it carefully
enough to know what you mean), so you try to redefine words
as you go.
If what you're saying is, "a general purpose computer can't
do X until the instructions to do X are loaded, therefore
making it do X creates a new machine", then you're saying
that any set of instructions is patentable (assuming
novelty).
I think patententability *is* the conclusion you're trying
to reach. Our problem is that you have failed to explain why
we should redefine "machine" (or "capable") in a way that
fits into that view. Writing a particular set of
instructions for a general-purpose computer makes a new
machine only in the sense that writing a novel makes a new
book. Copyrightable, sure, but certainly not patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|