|
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
Finally to answer the third argument, even assuming the point is
true (and i don't believe that it universally is), if you examine the hardware's
effect from the CPU's view (e.g. i/o lines on clock, hardware interrupts etc...)
it IS perfectly describable by lambda calculus. This would certainly imply that
the method of interfacing hardware to the CPU certainly IS patentable subject
mater, and i'm kinda good with that. However this simply does not imply that the
software instructions are not equivalent to lambda calculus and therefore
mathematical.
You are confusing in this paragraph... The
mathematical description of interfacing IS math... however, the physical
existence of the electron flow doesn't necessarily match. Keeping the mapping of
the mathematical symbols to the electron flow consistent is what makes the
interfacing hardware patentable.
And Lambda calculus operators ARE software
instructions...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|