decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I doubt it | 443 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I doubt it
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
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 | # ]

  • Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )