Patrick Elliott wrote:
>  and therefor isn't really "improved", 

Well, that's your opinion, which doesn't matter, since the Supreme Court is 
looking into it, yes?

> patent for "one click to buy from Amazon". Where is the "machine" 
> involved? 

That's probably not a machine patent, but a business process patent.

In any case, as I said, you need to look at "good" patents, because there 
are crap patents everywhere. If you made laws based on the worst example you 
could find, there wouldn't be any patents for anything.

> Its hard to conceive of a situation where you can logically argue that 
> code, in whatever form, isn't, in principle, possible for a human to 
> follow, 

I already gave you an example. You're clearly not reading, so I'll stop now.

But here's another example: Big Blue, the chess-playing machine.

> or where the "way" the result is shown, or "how" it gets the 
> data it needs, or "why" it needs to wait for that data, makes the 
> resulting instructions stop being instructions, and become a "device" of 
> some sort.

I gave you numerous examples of that too. The problem is you're thinking 
like a programmer, indoctrinated into the idea that software describes 
mathematical processes.

-- 
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