Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 
Please.. Please! Stop confusing the instructions that tell the machine 
what to do with the bloody machine. They are not the same thing. Of 
course the machine is. The question isn't if the machine is, its whether 
its "sufficient" to claim that stuffing the instructions the human would 
use into the machine somehow *turns* those instructions into *part* of 
the machine, or whether or not it makes any damn sense to claim that 
this "improved" the machine, given that the machine was perfectly 
capable of doing it without them, it just **didn't know how**, just the 
the human wouldn't, without instructions either (note, the original 
premise assumes a human that can understand and follow any instructions 
you might give them, not one prone to *make up* steps on their own, or 
already knows how to get the result, so its the same thing as a machine 
that has the *capacity* to do X, but doesn't know, without instructions 
to follow, how to *do* X).

-- 
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