Darren New wrote:
>> Yet, because a computer follows them real damn fast, 
> 
> Also incorrect. It's because a computer is hardware. You don't patent 
> the instructions. You patent a computing device that follows the 
> instructions.
> 
And, the point here is, the argument made, sadly effectively by some, is 
that loading software onto a machine makes it a new machine. It doesn't. 
Not any more than handing a person a list of instructions makes the 
person a new person, or the combination of that person and the 
instructions a new person/machine. The argument is invalid by the 
definitions given for what is patentable in the first place. Its only 
*been* allowed because neither side in the extant cases have bothered to 
point out *why* its invalid. Loading them into a machine doesn't make 
the instructions a "new" machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message