|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
He's said math is patentable. The Supremes keep saying it's not. He says
that's how the Law reads. But he ignores case Law and the fact the Supremes
have a power to prevent Congress from just authoring any Law Congress wants -
such as a power to shut down a Law allowing slavery.
He's said a process
of "apply 2+2= on a calculator and review result" is patentable. The Supremes
in Mayo made quite clear:
simply implementing a mathematical principle on a
physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that
principle
On a Supreme Court ruling he was unhappy with, he's voiced the
opinion:
How long will it take the Federal Circuit to overrule this
opinion?
Sorry - I do not believe he's right on the current state of Patent
Laws. And he insists the Supremes are wrong while he insists he is right. I
say the Supremes - although not quite fully there yet - are far more right then
Mr. Quinn is.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
No not always. It depends on whether the party is willing to listen and willing
to be educated.
Discussion with a preacher for software patents that just to his creed
"software is not math" doesn't give anything especially when the
opposing party uses erroneous definitions on both software and math. Some also
reads the law the way they want it to be, not how it is.
Not all people can be educated. Just clinging to preconceived ideas is not
conducive to understanding.
I say Software is Math, not because it is a creed or preconceived idea, but from
long experience of both software and math.
Me thinks Gene Quinn protesteth to much.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
gene deals primarily in strawmen, ad homs, and straight up
insults rather than in any honest and meaningful discourse. i
find conversations with people who behave as he does to be
tedious and pointless, but that's just me.
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
The SC says math is not patentable, but the USPTO patents it anyway. (Just look
up any codec or encryption patent).
Now, if the 'math is not patentable' homily were enforced, _most_ software
patents would be voided. Those remaining would be software patents disguised as
'method' or 'process' patents.
No progress will be made until this issue is settled.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|