Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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. 

I know that.  OK, I give up, since you're apparently so worked up about this 
you're not even reading.

> 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**, 

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This pile of pots and pans and 
chemicals *could* cure cancer. They just *didn't know how*.  Hence, the 
instructions for making a drug that cures cancer shouldn't be patentable, right?

-- 
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