Jim Henderson wrote:
> appreciated there, even if you do have a valid point, I've found.

Well, the article is clear and well-written, and talks extensively about 
theoretical computer science and turing machines and all that stuff. It's 
just irrelevant to patents, because the thing that makes software an 
improvement is its output, and theoretical computer science doesn't talk 
about I/O.  Theoretical computer science doesn't care about the speed of 
your computer or whether the keys on the keyboard are labeled right or 
whether the red and green guns in the CRT are wired in reverse. It's hard to 
imagine a patent of *any* type on a machine or subject or process that has 
absolutely no interaction with or affect of any type upon humans once it is 
set in motion, and that's what 99% of theoretical computer science is about.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message