Interesting concept...
Made me think about a diabetic requiring a regular
insulin injection. I'm comparing the insulin injection to the reboot. I guess
it depends on your definition of reboot. Of course it's not the same, but then
few things are when you cross boundaries from machine to animal.
I'm not a
mathematician, but then I don't think you are either, so I'd like you to tell me
what application of 1+1=2 makes that into applied maths?
You talk about the
doctrine of equivalents however the problem I think you have is that you do not
extend it as far as you should be doing. Consider that we both have similarly
built computers running the same OS. My computer running my software (a
ballistics simulation of firing a gun) is equivalent to your computer running
your software (a simulation to create an optimal drill bit design) irrespective
of the fact that computer+software produce different outputs. Our computers run
the same set of instructions (that is CISC/RISC/whatever). They are actually
doing the same things down at the minutest level - manipulating bits.
We
could then look at another pair of computers, one is a
WDR-1-Bit-Computer, the other is some ARM jobby, lets say a Samsung Android
phone since we love them. 2 really different machines. Both are hooked up,
whichever way you want, to a simple LED board which has 8 x 1 LED bulbs. I
personally wouldn't be able to do it (at the moment) but I'm pretty sure that
some clever programmer would easily be able to create the bounce effect on an
"image" of 3 bulbs lit which then "move" along the board to the end then, with
the right timing, show 2 bulbs, 1 bulb then bounce back to show 2 bulbs then 3
bulbs. They are special purpose machines that do the same thing so doesn't that
mean that the doctrine of equivalents would tell you that these are the same
machine? Are they?
The doctrine of equivalents would also tell you that 2
similar cafetiere's (ie French press), one with coffee the other with tea, are
the same even though they produce different drinks when you put hot water in
then (after a few minutes) pour out the resulting liquid. Or should that be 2
different cafetiere's, both with coffee, are the same because they both produce
coffee?
The doctrine of equivalents doesn't work with software.
You seem
to think that a 3d printer is a useful object that you can relate
to.
Aside from the 3d printer and the reel of plastic, the thing
that distinguishes what kind of item rolls off the printer is pure math, just
like pure math and ink and paper define what kind of book gets printed. And the
resultant item can easily be patentable.
It's a silly question to
ask you because I think I know your answer. Is the 3d printer a different 3d
printer because it produces something different? If the only thing that
distinguishes one 3d printer which produces a sphere from a 3d printer that
produces a cube is pure maths and pure maths is abstract then where is your
doctrine of equivalents now?
You may say that my points are silly but I don't
care. I'm right. (This isn't necessarily correct in all instances. I'm just
parodying your answers to certain points that PolR mentioned which appear to be
quite petulant. I can't pretend to understand everything that PolR has posted
previously but everything he has said that I understand I do agree with. In
those previous posts PolR did provide logical explanations and links which
supported what he stated. You provide no links to evidence for your assertions
in this discussion and I can't remember what previous points you may have raised
in other discussions on this subject so you do start from a worse position with
your point of view.)
I think PolR argues software=maths etc because those
that the things that he knows about and can argue about with expertise based on
fact and logic. Arguing for the things that you want the focus to be on are
things which are subjective and, in some cases, are already being done poorly by
the USPTO.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|