|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 12:14 PM EST |
The physical state of what we abstractly interpret as software is an
interpretation of a binary (2) state of one of:
- electrical charge -
tansistor, not full = zero, full = 1
- chemical charge - a battery has a
charge, or it does not
- magnetic presence - or not
- physical pit
- or not such as a given point on an audio cd
Ergo: the physical state
is one of a very finite set and the interpretation of the pattern of said state
in a particular flow is left up to humans to abstractly define as
"software"!
So for someone to claim the abstract pattern of 001 is
different from the abstract pattern of 100 for purposes of patentability is the
equivalent of patenting the flow of language.
The dog ran up the
road
is patenable - in that vein of argument - as
The road flowed by
the stream
Since the challenge is to prove a single physical existence of
software to prove software is not abstract: Proof of failure.
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|