|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
The operation of any machine one could invent comes down to
the physics and math that govern its behaviour. Maybe the
design comes down to choosing the type and arrangement of
elements which are purely physics, logic and and math based
in nature (and individually non patentable).
IIRC a collection of non patentable elements does not become
patentable by increasing size and complexity, but this seems
to be the accepted norm for non-software patents.
Perhaps there's a difference with the results of the
operation being purely abstract with computing algorithms,
and therefore being an abstract idea and process from start
to finish - unless you tack on an output device to the
patented invention, which is not part of the invention, but
is part of the patent. I'm not sure what the legal
implications of that are.
I disagree with software patents (or many issued patents
for that matter), I'm just trying to explore the differences
between patent types and eligibility.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Not to be overly picky, although really I am, not all
computers use 2's complement arithmetic.
The real functions of a CPU are add, load, store, negate,
shift/rotate, and/or/xor. Although you could further argue
that in reality everything a CPU does is really a NAND (not
and) operation, as all logic circuits can be built solely with
the proper combination of NAND gates. :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Software=math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- Software=math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
I agree that math concepts shouldn't be patented. But saying that software
shouldn't be patented because it's the same as math is like saying that real
physical devices (such as a smartphones and airplanes) shouldn't be patented
because they're the same as molecules and atoms.
Molecules and atoms are used and arranged in a specific way to implement real
physical things just as math is used and arranged in a specific way to implement
algorithms. If someone figures out a new way to solve a problem by, for
example, developing an algorithm that is 1000% more efficient than any previous
algorithm that solves the same problem, then it should be possible to patent
that new algorithm (but not the underlying math concepts).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|