|
Authored by: nick_battle on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 09:09 AM EST |
I would argue that a language with a formally defined semantics (as formal
specification languages are) is, by definition, not open to interpretation by
individuals. The meaning of any specification is mapped into mathematical
structures which have well defined meanings.
But we are straying from the point.
Formal specification, to me, seems to capture precisely (sic) what we want to
specify in a software patent. If an algorithm is presented in C or Java, it is
still unclear whether another implementation in Perl or Ada is the same
(infringing). With a formal specification, one only has to decide whether an
implementation is a valid refinement of the specification, regardless of the
programming language. There is a formal method to decide this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|