Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in 
>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
> 
> People don't patent software.
> 
> Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions 
> executable by a computing system to ....
> 
> You really need to understand that the details matter.
> 
Snort. Give me a break. There is a difference between something that 
tells someone/something how to do something, and something that "does 
it", by design. Details don't matter, if its the former. Why? Because 
you are not patenting a specific implementation, you are patenting 
"formula", which isn't allowed. You can trademark it, copyright it, 
etc., but technically, since it can, in principle, be "run" by a human, 
silly BS like adding, "When loaded into X machine, with Y device.", 
doesn't change the nature of the situation. Its like trying to claim 
that you are taking about a unique "machine", if an accountant, wearing 
a paisley tie, while standing on one foot, is the person you intend to 
program your VCR, therefor someone else's Aunt is in violation of patent 
if "she" tries to follow the same set of instructions.

Fine, you want to patent some combination of watsits, leave out the 
software, which is "instructions", and see what the people holding the 
patents on the "hardware" say about your patenting the "combination" of 
their products. Stuffing code on it doesn't make it "new", or make the 
code something other than code.

>> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases 
>> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the 
>> "definition" of patent, 
> 
> Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what 
> they're doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.
> 

How many cases have actually made the argument for why software isn't a 
*unique machine*, or causes something to *become one*, based on an 
explanation of them as "instructions"? The point made by the article I 
linked to is, "Not many, if any." And, if it was so *certain*, why would 
anyone be reviewing their validity?

In any case, I don't personally find the, "I wrote a set of instructions 
on how to do X, so now X is a new thing.", argument even remotely 
persuasive myself, and all the fancy, "Well, I am not patenting X, I am 
patenting Y, Z, Q and P, which are all patented by someone else, when 
used with X.", language I find even more silly. Either software is a 
thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem. 
If its the former, then you don't need all the fancy loopholes and 
absurd arguments about all the widgets you attached to it, to argue that 
it isn't. The only reason to have to be that obtuse is if the central 
premise is invalid to start with, and you damn well know it.

-- 
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