Both of those are pure math.
I am a dimwit sometimes.
Of course, you're right on this. I'd started with pressure = force/area then
thought I'd simplify it in my final edit.
Until they are used in
applications.
I'm not a mathematician, as previously stated, but
I'd disagree since I think you're taking what PolR out of context. Taken on
their own they'd always be pure maths. But at least you now acknowledge that
adding 2 numbers is now abstract which is in contrast to your earlier
position.
Addition of two known numbers is normally considered
applied math, not abstract math, regardless of the size of the
numbers
Pure maths is abstract. I can't remember and don't have
the time to look up PolR's articles but I'd argue that a computer is not doing
applied maths. It doesn't assign meanings to the numbers that it manipulates.
It just adds, subtracts, stores, etc. It doesn't look at a forumla and say that
pressure = force/area which is the result of a mass under acceleration exerting
a force which is applied over a certain area which can be measured in
N/m2.
When a computer is computing the next highest prime to be
discovered is that applied maths or is it pure maths? From what you're saying
so far I think you think it is applied maths.
Congratulations on hiding your
secret from your employer ;-) . I apologise for being a little insulting
earlier, I could have worded things better. So you understand how computers
work down to the nitty gritty, yet you're still unwilling to accept that
software is just mathematics and that we shouldn't argue that it is therefore
unpatentable. C'est la vie.
I honestly don't understand your
complaint here.
I was trying to point out how utterly daft the
doctrine of equivalents is when applied to software patents. I think that
lawyers use it when it suits them but ignore it when it doesn't.
Now as a
both a processor and and software developer, you can probably help me straighten
my thoughts. What comes first? The hardware or the software (ie algorithms you
need your hardware to run)? Has that always been the case ever since the first
computing engine was designed? I may have just changed my mind on which is more
complex to make but I'm not sure because, after working things out in my head,
if I were making a processor I'd be working on the algorithms first. I'm still
leaning toward the hardware because you'd need the know how of the
maths+engineering for the hardware.
On re-reading PolR's printing press
parody I see you're not crazy afterall.
To illustrate this
point, we may write a parody of the "programming a new computer makes a new
machine" using a printing press. A printing press configured to print a book is
a different printing press than one without such a configuration. One can lay
out ink on paper to make a book while the other cannot. A book with ink laid out
in different manner are physically different books. And printing presses
configured to print different books perform different functions, they make
different articles of manufacture.
The printing process is useful, it makes
a physical article of manufacture. A novel is the list of letters that specifies
how the ink must be laid out. A patentee is free to describe his invention that
way he chooses. He may use the text of a novel to do so.
I guess you get the
point. In this example the invention is the novel. It is not a book, a printing
press or a printing process. But we may play with words and use the fact we need
a physical support to record the novel to try to claim it.
The
way I see PolR's printing press parody is as follows:
Printing press =
computer
Printing press + type + paper = computer + input data
Printing
= running the software on the computer
Book = output data
Now for
some definitions,
computer is the bit that does the processing of the
software, essentially it is the CPU and does not include peripherals such as
monitor, printer, or even the hard drive where the software is stored
input
data is both the software + any extraneous input which is used by the software,
eg adobe reader + a pdf
type is the novel as formed on the printing
press
book is the novel as formed on the paper which is later
bound
output data is the result of running the software, eg data is which is
sent through an i/o interface to be printed, displayed, etc
The printing
press, an object, is patentable. As is the computer.
What is created when
running the printing process? An unbound book, containing the printed novel.
The book isn't bound so the novel isn't readable, as such, until it is bound. A
bookbinder could be considered to be similar to a peripheral, such as a monitor,
which allows the novel to be read.
What is created when running the software
on the computer? Signals which are sent to an i/o interface. The i/o interface
sends these signals on to a peripheral such as a monitor which will then light
the relevant pixels so that the results can be viewed.
PolR was saying, I
think, that a printing press which isn't set with type + paper is the same
(legal) machine as the same printing press when it is set with type + paper.
They perform the same actions. When there is an "E" to print the press will
print an "E", when there is an "A" to print, the press will print an "A".
Irrespective of what type is or is not loaded, I think the doctrine of
equivalents would apply.
Likewise, the computer is the same machine whether
loaded with the data or not. Whether it is running the software or not it will
perform the same actions when instructions are received. When there is a
"read", the processor will do a "read", when there is a "move" it will do a
"move". Irrespective of what data is or is not received by the processor, I
think the doctrine of equivalents would apply. (I know, what I think doesn't
matter, just opinion, blah blah.)
The novel is a precise arrangement of the
letters. The printing press only "understands" one instruction, which is to
mark the paper. The computer understands more. The software is a precise
arrangement of data received by the processor as changes in voltages which will
be "understood" as instructions and values or locations.
There are 3
creations with the printing press parody. The story (which has been arranged as
type), the printing press and the printed, but as yet unbound, book. The story
and (possibly, though not necessarily) book are copyrightable and the printing
press (no type+paper) is patentable. Neither story nor book are patentable.
I've not yet seen a software patent advocate argue that story or book would be
patentable. Nor have they argued that printing press + type + paper would be
patentable (because a change in the type means it would be a new printing
press).
There are 3 creations with the software, the input data (software +
other data), the computer and the output data (signals sent to an i/o
interface). Input data and (possibly, though not necessarily) output data are
copyrightable. The computer (no input data) is patentable. Input data (ie
software part) is not patentable, as such. However here, software patent
advocates do argue that computer + input data is patentable (because a change in
input data means it would be a new computer).
A patentee is free
to describe his invention that way he chooses. He may use the text of a novel to
do so.
I'm not sure what PolR meant by this. Maybe
A novel
is a work of fiction which can be put in printed format. A (software) patentee
can put his patent in printed format and therefore he has created a novel. A
software patent is, afterall, a work of (legal) fiction.
And here,
In this example the invention is the novel. It is not a book, a
printing press or a printing process. But we may play with words and use the
fact we need a physical support to record the novel to try to claim it.
I think PolR means, the output data wasn't created solely by the
programmer, just as the (unbound) book wasn't created solely by the novel
writer. The new invention is the input data, not the output data, just as the
novel is the new invention, not the (unbound) book.
Without the book in
which the novel is recorded there is no invention to claim. Software patents,
as written as broadly as they sometimes are, make their claims on the results of
running the software, not the actual invention which is the software itself. I
think.
I'll probably give up on this discussion for now. I'm sure you have
already. My brain hurts now..
j
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|