|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 03:39 AM EST |
The reason I react so violently to 'understand' and 'stream' is that lawyers and
judges see Groklaw and will choose their own interpretation of your words to
decide how computers work.
A stream of digital information gives the impression of a 'flow' of digital
signs down a wire. A judge or lawyer should not be allowed to retain that
impression because it leads to daft legal opinions.
A sequence of digital signs appearing at a port one after another is a precise
description of what actually happens in a computer when the 'stream of data' in
a file 'flows' from hard drive to memory.
The signs in a computer are not charge and no charge. They are voltages relative
to ground. They are charge signs chosen by the electrical designer to signify
'0', '1', 'TRUE', 'FALSE', 'ON' and 'OFF' depending on the nomenclature used
when designing the logic circuits (the truth tables presented by logic gate
designers have used all of these labels).
I use 'charge' rather than 'voltage' because the patent lawyers use the phrase
'programs in memory' and 'charge' is appropriate in this context.
An audio CD and a video DVD can be played without a computing device by decoding
the digital sequence of signs in the electrical domain. When we were young,
that's how players worked.
I don't want judges and lawyers thinking that software is a high-tech,
patentable means of playing audio and video: Too late, they patented the
decoding algorithms. See, told you so!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|