|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:01 PM EST |
"Likewise, in this case, HOW you do the calculations (with a
computer? in your head? on paper?) is irrelevant."
As I mentioned earlier, it can be relevant insofar as how fast you get the
results (and, of course, how accurate they are). Having said that, in this day
and age, applying a computer to tasks that people are already doing should fail
any obviousness test. But I can easily envision new things (the space shuttle
example above) that nobody would contemplate without a computer.
"What matters is what you DO with the results."
And also whether the results are an integral part of the process. This
bisection of the problem is not always taken to be as easy as you make it out to
be.
"Get rid of all this "how" verbiage, that is extraneous to
the actual result, and a lot of patents would vanish."
This is confusing, and counter to what a lot of people are saying. One of the
arguments we are seeing now from the "not all software patents are evil but
a lot of the issued ones are garbage" crowd is that you shouldn't be able
to patent the idea of, e.g., bounce-back, but that perhaps, you should be able
to patent a particular implementation.
In other words, that the "how" is extremely important.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 06:08 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 08:13 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jesse on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 10:59 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM EST
- Nope. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 06:07 AM EST
- I disagree completely - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Sorry about that. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:52 PM EST
- Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:25 AM EST
- Then you understand that mathematics is an abstract concept - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:52 AM EST
- So is physics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST
- If you understand computation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- Sure, you can simulate what a computer does with your mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 02:52 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Hardware is NOT software - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EST
- Who is arguing that software by itself should be patentable? - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:29 PM EST
- You're missing the simulation point - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:34 AM EST
- not exactly. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 AM EST
- That is due to the recurseive observation.. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:17 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- you reminded me of a standard challenge. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:33 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:59 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: bprice on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:52 AM EST
- No, I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:51 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No I'm not - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:02 PM EST
- insurmountable task to build an analog computer - Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:51 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 04:59 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:07 AM EST
- The problem.. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 10:31 AM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM EST
|
|
|
|