|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:33 PM EST |
http://www.itworld.com/software/341297/appeals-court-considers-software-
patents
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 09:01 PM EST |
Remember, there is no connection, none at all, between the COMPUTER and the
program.
Here's the proof.
Take the program. DON'T PUT IT IN THE COMPUTER.
Instead, let the computer ask for it, one instruction at a time.
Now, how is this computer doing something different than your
"reconfigured" computer which has the same program "put into the
computer"? They both do exactly the same thing.
But wait a minute! Any modern computer DOESN'T keep the whole program in MEMORY.
It brings in chunks from disk. In fact, it may not even HAVE a disk--it may
bring in those chunks from another computer. But do those computers do anything
different when running your pizzley little bookkeeping program?
NO! The bookkeeping program doesn't know, or care, whether it's all in memory at
once, or partly on a disk, or any of that. It executes exactly the same logical
instructions.
And wait another minute! A modern computer has multiple levels of cache, that
are dynamically loaded when information is fetched from "memory". When
does this computer get "reconfigured", judge? Is it when the first
byte of that program first enters the CPU == but before you answer, how many
programs have the exact same first byte? Is it when the entire program gets
fetched into memory -- but before you answer, remember that the entire program
may never get fetched into memory, and if it is fetched into memory it may not
be all in memory at once! Is the computer "reconfigured" when the
program is loaded into a disk, but before you answer remember that many
computers don't have disks or indeed any other memory capable of holding the
entirety of a large program -- they depend utterly on being able to ask across a
net for any particular bytes as needed.
What's next? A patent for "representing the number 246 on an abacus",
followed by lawsuits against anyone who MIGHT have ever represented that number
on an abacus (because the litigant doesn't even have to have proof that the
victim actually ever used the patent--just that he MIGHT have used it....)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 12:42 PM EST |
But reconfiguring is illegal under the CFAA!
SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE ILLEGAL!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST |
IS ABSTRACT.
It clearly does NOT follow, that what the flowchart describes is not abstract.
Argumentum ad non sequitur ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|