Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 
> Wrong button. Try that again.
> 
> """
> What I get from the paper is that there isn't really a difference 
> between what a human does with a paper and pencil and what a computer 
> does, except speed.
> """
> 
> There's really not a difference between what an automobile does and what 
> a human does when walking except speed. Does that mean an automobile is 
> unpatentable?
> 
Once again.. Its not what it *does*. If you tell a person to travel to 
NY, and assuming you had a car that could auto-navigate, tell *it* to 
drive to NY, the instructions telling to to drive there are not fracking 
patentable. Its not the **action** that determines what is and isn't, 
its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
makes the **instructions** non-patentable. Software is, on a basic 
level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. You don't melt down a 
batch of bloody Java code, send it through an injection molder, to get a 
dashboard. Its not a thing in that sense. You *might* ***tell*** the 
injection molder to add X amount of plastic, using software, which is 
not the same thing as *building* a molder, or *making* a dashboard. Its 
"instructing" the machine to do something a specific way, which is human 
repeatable. Its not the ability to do it that matters, its the actually 
instruction, "Do this precisely this way, if you want the next step to 
be right.", just like if you where following a mathematical formula.

-- 
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