Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything,

And that's why people don't patent software. There's really no point in 
pursuing this if you're not going actually look at actual patents.

 > 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.". 

No, it's the cabinet you get by following those instructions.

> is not a valid argument, 

How do you know, given that that's exactly the question before the supreme 
court right now?

> 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. 

People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware that 
accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to accomplish a 
specific task.

-- 
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