Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.

It's not me. I'm not the one saying it's a meaningful distinction.

Are you arguing what should be, or what is?

> 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. 

Yes. You're patenting a specific implementation of preparing those 
spark-lines, in particular, one which is run from a computer-readable medium.

> 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. 

I beg to differ. Unless, if course, you're arguing how it should be, rather 
than how it is, in which case there isn't a lot of point in discussing things.

> 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?

Because the rules on what you can patent are being changed.

> 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,

Since you're not a patent judge, that doesn't really matter much.

> Either software is a 
> thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem. 

I'm saying that people don't patent software. They patent hardware that's 
running that software.  You may argue that it doesn't make any difference, 
but that factually isn't the case, or nobody would be trying to change that 
via the courts right now.

> 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.

Again, are you arguing "is" or are you arguing "should be"? Because right 
now the Supreme Court is trying to decide what "is", so if you're arguing 
"is", I'd have to say you're full of it, as the Supreme Court doesn't even 
know the answer. If you're arguing "should be", then I'll ignore you since 
your opinion isn't relevant to the discussion of what actually is. :-)

-- 
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