Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Show me how many patents MS holds that talk about the hardware, and not 
> software, then explain to me how its not patenting software itself. 

I quoted you one. Show me one that actually claims to patent the software.

> You are wrong about that. 

Show me one patent that *says* they're patenting the software, and not the 
computer executing the software or a piece of hardware storing the software, 
or describing it as an abstract "process for blah implemented via a computer".

I have looked at hundreds of software patents, many professionally, and not 
one I have seen has ever claimed to patent software.

> And the arguments being made

I'm not asking what the "arguments being made" are. I'm asking whether it's 
*you* making the arguments, or someone else.  In either case, I don't care 
to debate the matter of "should" or "should not".

Obviously they *did* allow patents on lots of software. Obviously they're 
now rethinking on whether that's reasonable, and if not, how to exclude 
software.

Let's say you have an industrial process. In theory, a human could indeed 
control that with a pencil and paper except for being so slow the chemicals 
or whatever would all congeal by the time he decided whether to cook it any 
longer. So you need something to compute how the machine works. Does that 
make the machine non-patentable? How much of the machine can you take away 
before the machine can no longer be patented? That's basically the problem.

-- 
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