Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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....
> 
> They certainly are. You insist on looking at legal problems from the 
> point of view of abstract computer science. Nobody is patenting abstract 
> computer science.
> 
No, they are just redefining what **is** abstraction as *not 
abstracted*, so they can say its not the same thing. Kind of like what 
the Catholics did with Capabara to redefine them as fish, so they could 
get around eating them on holy days. It doesn't impress me, but it 
certainly does impress someone whose area of expertise is the patenting 
of discrete machines, but ***not*** computers.

-- 
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