Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware 
>>> that accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to 
>>> accomplish a specific task.
>>>
>> In which you just contradicted yourself. Specific tasks are not relevant.
> 
> They're very relevant.
> 
>  > X + Y = Z is a specific task too,
> 
> No, that would be a mathematical formula, which is not patentable.
> 
> Tell me, are you actually educated in this field? Have you personally 
> ever talked to a patent lawyer and had them explain how the patent 
> system works? Or are you just reading groklaw and thinking that tells 
> you how to be a patent lawyer?
> 
> Because what you're saying leads me to believe you haven't any idea what 
> you're talking about.
> 

There is also a saying, "The surest way for someone to not understand 
something is for their paycheck to be based on failing to understand 
it." I think some of these patent lawyers are falling pray to this 
problem. Same with most of the people writing a lot of these patents. If 
there must be a range for which it does apply, and this isn't at all 
certain, given the speed and nature of computer development and rapid 
turn over of applications, then it has got to be a **lot** narrower than 
what is being applied. And, you are missing my point again. Yes, what I 
gave as an example is a mathematical formula, but the rules don't 
require that it be a formula, just that it have the same attributes as one.

But, what ever. Our arguments on the matter are not going to define 
where the lines get drawn.

-- 
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