Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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." 

Yet, oddly enough, we have an adversarial court system, wherein if you don't 
understand something about the law, you tend to lose your cases.

> then it has got to be a **lot** narrower than 
> what is being applied. 

I'm not arguing that.

> 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.

Yes. And a formula for a circle doesn't have the same attributes as a method 
for calculating how much torque to apply to a differential to reduce the 
tread wear of your tires, given that the motion of the gears is approximated 
by a circle closely enough that you can apply the formula that you can't 
otherwise patent.

You're arguing that you're right, except for the details. I'm saying the 
details matter.

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

That's what I've been saying.

-- 
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