|
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
Good point! And, if your processing hardware is a Turing machine (most are), it
can be replaced by any other design of Turing machine of sufficient performance
executing an equivalent program. Remember that the Turing machine can have any
arbitrary instruction set, as long as it can go backwards and forwards im
memory, read and write to a memory cell, or execute the instruction in the cell.
(Loosely interpreted from Turing's original tape-based concept.) If you can
swap the alleged software machine with any other, and still make the system
work, the software part of the thing is clearly non-specific, and how would you
patent that? Turing's work was in 1936. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
If software didn't improve the machine, why would we pay for it.
Improvements to machines are patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 12:52 AM EDT |
i can even use every known programming language and prolly
come up with just about the same way to get the same results
but having different "machines" thusly for every known
computer language....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: capt.Hij on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
Not only that but you have to specify the version of the
software. Every
time I make an update to the software I make
a new machine!
Wheee!
Better yet, the people making computers are making a
machine that
makes machines. They should have patented that
idea when they had the chance
then the microprocessor would
have been off limits to everyone else. Since they
use
machines to make computers, those machines are machines that
make machines
that make machines too. Now if there are
machines to make those
machines.... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
Even better, the computer that you're sitting and typing at, or moving your
mouse, or simply just watching in awe and wonder is a different machine with
every clock tick.
Think about it you patent lawyers... a new machine every clock tick... you know
how many of those there are every second? Just think of all those lovely,
lovely patents.
Sadly, this argument was put before Gene Quinn and his ilk on the PLI Patent
Blog back in 2008. These charlatans are unwilling to learn or use logic.
j[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|