Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. 
> 
> Note that if you use the rule "it's something a human could do with 
> pencil and paper, only faster", you rule out patents on actual CPUs, on 
> technology that makes chips faster, etc. Since they're by definition 
> only doing what a human can do, only faster, then no improvements in 
> semiconductor manufacture or chip layout can be patented either.
> 
No I fracking don't. Its not enough that a human can do it. The 
requirement is not that it be a human doing it, it be that a human can 
"follow the instructions". A CPU replaces the human **not the 
instructions** the human is following. That is where the difference is. 
Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything, its, 
"instructions on what to do, using what ever tools are available to do 
it, to get a specific result". This is not the same as the thing that 
processes those instructions, its not the shovel digging the hole, its 
the note saying, "how deep, and where", its not a CPU, its the thing 
telling the CPU what its is supposed to do. It isn't the human being, or 
the wood cabinet they are building, its the bloody sheet of paper 
telling them, "Insert tab A into slot B.". And, to state it again, 
stuffing the sheet into a box of parts, and claiming that this makes the 
instructions part of a "patent", just because its not part of the box 
contents is not a valid argument, any more than the even sillier 
suggestion that, while I am building the cabinet, I become patentable, 
or, more precisely, "The interactions of any human with our set of 
instructions, which turn them into a manufacturer of cabinets.", which 
is what some of these things amount to claiming, only without using the 
term "human". But, the point of the distinction about "non-patentability 
of algorithms", is that you can't replace "human", with bird, monkey, 
space alien, or *CPU*, and suddenly have the definition thrown out. 
Either it is something that falls under the definition, or it isn't. If 
it isn't, then you need something more substantial than, "Well, its 
because a person isn't doing 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