|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Just to be clear.
a) The article doesn't argue there is no physical changes.
b) The article argues the physical changes do no make a new machine and explains
why this is so.
c) The factual explanations given by the court cases on why a new machine is
made are technically erroneous.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
Is a computer not a machine designed for the express purpose of making new
machines?
That is, sure, this or that program makes my computer a new machine, it does
something different when it runs!
But it is completely the wrong question...just as asking whether loading new
cards in the jaquard loom makes it a new machine, or loading a new stencil in a
printing press makes it a new machine is the wrong question.
The computer *IS* a machine for making new machines, and we do this by
programming.
The right question: Is a particular machine, implemented on a computing device
which is tailor-made for making new machines, and has all kinds of other
well-known and wonderful properties (even if the computer is required to make it
practical, as in a cell phone call, or OFDM/Wi-Fi radio), actually novel and
nonobvious?
And, given the damage that the litigation *is* doing, should it be patentable?
Here's another crazy thought: In 1995 or so, I was co-inventor (Christenson) on
US Patent 5,106,192. It's only been 20 years or so, but what are the utility
patent numbers up to? 7 million or so? So that's 2/7 of the utility patents in
only 20 years.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|