Does a lawyer define "machine" as "a device
that does one
thing", so changing software under that
definition does indeed create a "new
machine" as the created
device does something different to the non programmed
machine and the machine with different
software?
Obviously that is the rational. It is how they
sneak
around the fact that software is totally abstract, and
therefore
unpatentable. However, it is crass sophistry.
There is no new machine created.
The machine already
anticipated the use to which it was put. The machine was
invented long ago, as a general purpose computer. Putting
software on it
does
not change it. It remains a general purpose computer.
I can't
understand your comment. It seems as if you
support this notion that lawyers
should be able to bend
reality to serve their purpose. If you believe that, you
are
a part of the problem. The above issue has been well
discussed by others,
even learned judges, far more
eloquently than I. See Groklaw's pages on
"Software is
Mathematics for further edification. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|