Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> a computer with software on it **always is**?
> 
> Nobody said it always is. There are many patents rejected, both for 
> software and hardware.
> 
>> Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
>> so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
>> "improving" the machine?
> 
> Because you're patenting the results, not how you get there.
> 
The problem of course being that the "result" is one of two things, a 
machine, which is following instructions, and therefor isn't really 
"improved", since its not doing something it couldn't, just something it 
didn't have instructions for, or its the *output*, which is like a 
printed book. I.e., it doesn't matter if your "printer"/"printing press" 
is printing to CD, video, sound, paper, or the damn moon, the end result 
is not a machine itself. And, a machine following instructions on how to 
produce that isn't somehow "improved" by loading code into it, otherwise 
software would be patentable *directly*, without the legerdemain and 
slight of hand being used to argue that its "improving" something else.

This, to me, is the key problem. A lot of stuff is... well, like the 
patent for "one click to buy from Amazon". Where is the "machine" 
involved? Its not the button you click, that is just the machine 
following instructions that say, "If the mouse clicks here, inform some 
code", which is instructions to send something to the web, where more 
instructions tell the other end to use that data to do something. At no 
point in the process is there a discreet "machine", other than the 
physical hardware. And the patent isn't about executing that specific 
bit of code on a specific bit of hardware. Its software, running 
software, interpreting data, which is sent by other software, which is 
**very** indirectly run on a machine. A machine that is a "general 
purpose" device, designed to mimic the human ability to, "follow 
instructions". What exactly got "improved" there? It certainly wasn't 
someone attaching a new part to a physical machine, or even *building* 
one that specifically handled that situation. Its all instructions, some 
of which just happen to include, "Wait for those other instructions, 
some place else, to give you data to act on." An instruction that is 
hardly different, in principle, to someone writing down on paper, "Wait 
until the sun goes down, before lighting the candle."

Its hard to conceive of a situation where you can logically argue that 
code, in whatever form, isn't, in principle, possible for a human to 
follow, or where the "way" the result is shown, or "how" it gets the 
data it needs, or "why" it needs to wait for that data, makes the 
resulting instructions stop being instructions, and become a "device" of 
some sort.

Point is, if I could build a robot that could read, and build, the same 
cabinet, from the same instructions, simply moving those instructions to 
a data chip doesn't make it an, "improvement to the robot". Its still 
"reading" them, following them, and performing steps, based on them, 
regardless of what they are *read* from, and the only protection those 
instructions should receive is copyright, not patent.

-- 
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

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. X + Y = Z is a specific task too, and if you mean "specific" 
as in, "The numbers need to be 2, 3 and 5.", then just about every, 
"algorithm applied to accomplish a specific task.", would be invalid, 
since they are no where near that *specific*. You shouldn't be allowed 
to have it both ways, yet, part of the problem seems to be that many are 
provisionally allowed, based "specifically" on this sort of slight of hand.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
>> makes the **instructions** non-patentable.
> 
> People don't patent the instructions.
> 
>> Software is, on a basic level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. 
> 
> That's why people don't patent the instructions. If you're not even 
> going to read the claims of a patent, there's not a lot of sense in 
> discussing it with you.
> 
Well, then don't. I consider the wording, no matter what it says, to be 
little more than slight of hand. A, "Well, the instructions are 
copyrighted, but the combination of the instructions and the machine, 
which produce X result are patented." No, the result is, as you say, but 
even that is imho, questionable, since in most cases, the result is 
transitory, and of a nature that makes it basically either data to be 
moved/transmitted/stored and used some place else, of some equivalent to 
a printed page. Last I checked, you can't patent books either, yet, 
under your definition, they are the result, just like the cabinet. The 
problem is, simply, if your "result", or even the process to get that 
result, amount to data->instructions->resulting in more data, well.. 
This differs how from say, computing the area of a circle, using the 
"data" out of the prior step, in which you determined the circumference? 
Its just a step in the process. There is no "cabinet" at the end of it, 
which constitutes a tangible asset.

Might there be some set of such patents that "may" be, if not iffy, then 
beneficial, so allowed? Maybe. A lot of people have argued that such a 
claim is itself suspect, based on their experience and the rising costs 
of having to cover 50,000 different "patents" that might be needed, just 
to show a pink, pokadot, 3D cube, using X companies hardware, with Y 
companies software, with Z persons library, in Q country, if standing in 
your head, while wearing a dress... In short, if it costs you 500 times 
what it takes to make something to cover all the damn patents, people 
are hardly going to be inclined to invent it... In the computer world, 
some things get *close* to that bad, and everyone knows it.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
>  and therefor isn't really "improved", 

Well, that's your opinion, which doesn't matter, since the Supreme Court is 
looking into it, yes?

> patent for "one click to buy from Amazon". Where is the "machine" 
> involved? 

That's probably not a machine patent, but a business process patent.

In any case, as I said, you need to look at "good" patents, because there 
are crap patents everywhere. If you made laws based on the worst example you 
could find, there wouldn't be any patents for anything.

> Its hard to conceive of a situation where you can logically argue that 
> code, in whatever form, isn't, in principle, possible for a human to 
> follow, 

I already gave you an example. You're clearly not reading, so I'll stop now.

But here's another example: Big Blue, the chess-playing machine.

> or where the "way" the result is shown, or "how" it gets the 
> data it needs, or "why" it needs to wait for that data, makes the 
> resulting instructions stop being instructions, and become a "device" of 
> some sort.

I gave you numerous examples of that too. The problem is you're thinking 
like a programmer, indoctrinated into the idea that software describes 
mathematical processes.

-- 
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

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.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, then don't. I consider the wording, no matter what it says, to be 
> little more than slight of hand. 

Welcome to the legal system!

> This differs how from say, computing the area of a circle, using the 
> "data" out of the prior step, in which you determined the circumference? 

That's a mathematical formula. Applying that formula in order to calculate 
how far to turn the wheel as you go around a corner in order to reduce the 
wear on tire treads of your car? That's patentable. See the difference?

> some things get *close* to that bad, and everyone knows it.

Now you're arguing something completely different. You're arguing "should" 
instead of "is", so there's no real point in dicussing *that*, you see?

-- 
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

Here's a bit of grey area:  should a unique mechanical device that 
performs a new and unobvious function be patentable if it is merely the 
output someone made using a CAD/CAM device, therefore no different in a 
way from a book printed on a printing press?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Here's a bit of grey area: 

There are lots of grey areas. What about a dedicated machine that performs a 
function which, because of later developments, can now be computerized. 
Perhaps a clunky analog audio processing device replaced nowadays with a 
DSP? Does that mean the DSP isn't infringing on the patent? Does that mean 
the original device should never have been patentable?

What if you take an algorithm and describe it with rod logic, like a babbage 
computing engine? Is it patentable? Does it make software implementations 
infringing? Does it make sense to say doing something with atoms is 
patentable but doing something with electrons isn't?

Take a dedicated word-processing machine, like those old typewriters. Does 
that mean a modern software-only implementation would infringe? Or not? Or 
does it mean that the original machine should never have passed patent in 
the first place?

And, of course, realize that patents are lists of instructions, so 
technically, if you're saying you can't infringe with a device following a 
list of arbitrary instructions, then feeding the plans described by a patent 
into a computer to manufacture the device so described should not be 
patentable. If you can't patent following instructions with by a general 
purpose computer, then you can't patent anything a general purpose computer 
can create, including one hooked up to a manufacturing machine capable of 
manufacturing patented devices.

-- 
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

Can a self-modifying Von Neumann machine patent its 
unique/mutated/modified offspring?

...

Can a parent patent their child?

The possibilities are endless!

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Can a self-modifying Von Neumann machine patent its 
> unique/mutated/modified offspring?
> 
> ...
> 
> Can a parent patent their child?
> 
> The possibilities are endless!
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Well, we have people patenting genes, which are "found", not "invented", 
so... lol

-- 
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