|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |