|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
A computer with any particular piece of software has no *capabilities* that the
same computer without that software has.
A car is pretty useless when it's in neutral, right? So it's an improvement to
put it in 5th?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
How many layers of abstraction do you have to go through before you
are able to
justify that conclusion to yourself?
All it needs is
knowledge of some of the fundamental principles of computer science: the
mathematical notion of algorithm and the stored program
architecture.
Computers don't work according to your simplistic
understanding. Computer science is what it is. Here you are arguing with some of
the experts in the field dismissing the principles of computer science as
"complex" and "many layers of abstraction". These arguments don't refute the
facts of computer science.
You advocate a view where software works by
"configuring" the hardware. It doesn't. Software is data given as input to an
algorithm. It is not possible to be technically correct when calling software a
configuration of the computer without simultaneously calling all data a
"configuration" and dismissing the fact that data is changed billions of time
per second while the computer is running. The technical evidence has been
presented. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
BUT THAT IS THE POINT.
ALL SOFTWARE IS AN ABSTRACTION.
ABSTRACTIONS ARE NOT PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER.
So installing software on a computer cannot be patentable, because
"patentable object + abstraction" != "new patentable
object".
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|