Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
You also have to discuss if the law itself is appropriate. If the law is bonkers
( that is contrary to Science and proven Experience ) it has to be set aside, no
discussion can save it. And in a common law system it can be set aside.
Laws that reflect outdated and wrong concepts has killed more people than
anything else.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
The Supremes have stated in Mayo:
simply implementing a
mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a
patentable application of that principle
So... the
challenge:
Please identify a single software process which is not an
algorithm of a mathematical principle.
If you can not identify a single
software process that does something more then implement a math algorithm -
logically you must acknowledge that software (whether applied to a computer or
not) does not pass the basic 101 test.
If it does not pass the basic 101
test - there is no need for examination into any of the other requirements for
patentability.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
whether i choose to argue a point of law or not has precisely
zero to do with how gene chooses to behave; people are
responsible for themselves and the actions they perform.
i stand by my assessment of his character.
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 | # ]
|
|