|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
To clarify:
you're confusing "machine" and "computer hardware" again.
In a valid reductio ad absurdam, you have to start from the
proposition to be disproved: that the "machine" is (or at
least includes) the software, not just the "computer" (by
which you plainly meant hardware). You did that in the very
beginning, but then you discarded it. The proposition does
not say or imply that it's "no longer the same computer",
just that it's not the same "machine."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
This is straining credulity.
If you argue it this way I will say none of the billions of machines infringe
because none of them carry all the steps necessary to infringe on a software
patent. They all turn into a different machine upon executing the next
instruction.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|