Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 
But not exactly what the article is talking about.

-- 
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