Tim Cook wrote:
> Here's a bit of grey area: 

There are lots of grey areas. What about a dedicated machine that performs a 
function which, because of later developments, can now be computerized. 
Perhaps a clunky analog audio processing device replaced nowadays with a 
DSP? Does that mean the DSP isn't infringing on the patent? Does that mean 
the original device should never have been patentable?

What if you take an algorithm and describe it with rod logic, like a babbage 
computing engine? Is it patentable? Does it make software implementations 
infringing? Does it make sense to say doing something with atoms is 
patentable but doing something with electrons isn't?

Take a dedicated word-processing machine, like those old typewriters. Does 
that mean a modern software-only implementation would infringe? Or not? Or 
does it mean that the original machine should never have passed patent in 
the first place?

And, of course, realize that patents are lists of instructions, so 
technically, if you're saying you can't infringe with a device following a 
list of arbitrary instructions, then feeding the plans described by a patent 
into a computer to manufacture the device so described should not be 
patentable. If you can't patent following instructions with by a general 
purpose computer, then you can't patent anything a general purpose computer 
can create, including one hooked up to a manufacturing machine capable of 
manufacturing patented devices.

-- 
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