|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:50 PM EST |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reiisi on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 07:46 AM EST |
Setting aside the question of whether there is something besides the physical
brain to the human intellect, we are pretty confident that the pattern networks
in the brain imply some physical representation of our thoughts.
The issue is in the general purpose nature of the modern computer. General
purpose processing implies a complexity that exceeds the patentably mechanical.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 09:54 AM EST |
As reiisi indicates:
The grey matter, the dendrites, the neurons, all
these have physical form just like the motherboard, the bus and the
microchip.
In both cases of the brain and the computer, they execute via
electricity!
So please explain how "math in the brain" is different from
"algorithm in the computer"!
As I said:
Only when you suspend reality
and attempt to argue the abstract is physical do you start to run into the
problems!
And when you do that, you also:
Make all abstract into the
physical!
So how does that reconcile with the Supreme's stating that
abstract concepts such as math are not patentable subject matter? Yes: the
Federal Circuit is buying the arguments of the fast talking Lawyers - but that
doesn't alter the reality they are doing nothing more then:
Attempting to
somehow explain why the abstract should be treated as physical!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 11:11 AM EST |
If you can logically prove something is true or correct, then it is abstract. If
you observe that works, then it is physical.
I know we have our differences on whether Science is part of Maths or not, but
the distinction is simple to someone ordinarily skilled in the art of
Philosophy.
Pretty much ALL inventions fall into both the abstract and the physical, the
question is where to draw the line. Diehr actually does quite a good job.
If you examine the source code and run it in your head you can (in principle)
prove it is correct. This is clearly abstract. The software - or chemical
process or any other invention - is here clearly specified in the abstract and
cannot be patented.
Now let's put the software on a computer (or chemistry in a plant). This is
where debugging etc comes in, the science, observing whether it actually
achieves anything. This is where it could become tricky, but as far as software
goes it's pretty obvious. Putting a non-patentable abstract piece of software
onto a general purpose computer may make a new patentable idea, but what is
there to patent? NOTHING! The computer is already patented and you can't patent
the software.
This is the point of Diehr - the rubber curing plant was a *NEW* machine and
thus patentable. Just like nuts and bolts were prior art but were patentable AS
PART of the plant, so was the software. Or like a chemical plant designed to do
my hypothetical chemistry.
Anything susceptible to logical proof cannot be patented in its own right. It
can only be patented as a component of a NEW whole.
Oh - and as another example of why functions shouldn't be patented ... lets
patent the function "f( n CxHy + nn O2 ) => nCO2 + y/2 H2O"
Whoops - I've just patented the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, gas
central heating, etc etc etc! Nice little money earner that !!!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2013 @ 06:38 PM EST |
....adding something abstract to something concrete in the prior art gives you
something which is not abstract, but which is also not patentable.
The computer is in the prior art and is sold for the express purpose of running
all possible abstract algorithms. Adding a new abstract algorithm to the
prior-art computer is an illegal attempt to patent the concrete item which was
invented by Intel or Dell or who-ever, and an attempt to patent an *intended*
use of that item.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|