Darren New wrote:
> 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?
> 
Erk.. Oh, yes, and everyone knows that a pile of pots, pans and 
chemicals are a) able to, or b) designed to, follow sets of general 
instructions. I give up....

-- 
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