Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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. 

I don't think people make that argument. If they did, they wouldn't be 
worried about the Beloski case, or whatever it's called. Right now, you 
don't have to patent only "a new machine". You patent any machine running 
that software.

> Loading them into a machine doesn't make 
> the instructions a "new" machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.

Can you show me anywhere that someone claimed that loading instructions into 
a machine makes it a new machine?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message