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

Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 

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." I think some of these patent lawyers are falling pray to this 
problem. Same with most of the people writing a lot of these patents. If 
there must be a range for which it does apply, and this isn't at all 
certain, given the speed and nature of computer development and rapid 
turn over of applications, then it has got to be a **lot** narrower than 
what is being applied. 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.

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

-- 
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:
>> 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?
> 
Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed it 
into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just taking 
data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end result. You 
want to built a machine to do that, find. You build an algorithm to do 
that, its not part of the machine, nor is the machine... Oh, hell. 
Forget 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:
> 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed it 
> into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just taking 
> data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end result. 

No, you're not. The end result isn't useful unless it *actually* reduces the 
wear in your tires. You can calculate all the discrete logarithms you want, 
but unless you establish a process of communication, you're not doing public 
key encryption.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed 
>> it into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just 
>> taking data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end 
>> result. 
> 
> No, you're not. The end result isn't useful unless it *actually* reduces 
> the wear in your tires. You can calculate all the discrete logarithms 
> you want, but unless you establish a process of communication, you're 
> not doing public key encryption.
> 
The end result isn't useful in algorithms unless its "correct". In this 
case, "correct" means you got the answer you wanted, not something else. 
But, thought we where dropping this. 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, thought we where dropping this. lol

Since at this point you seem to be *intentionally* missing the point, sure.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> But, thought we where dropping this. lol
> 
> Since at this point you seem to be *intentionally* missing the point, sure.
> 
Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
Seriously though, this reminds me of a discussion I had one day with a 
guy that was going to college for Electronic Engineering, at the same 
time I was taking Computer Information Systems, on approaches to AI and 
what we thought would actually work. We spent like 3 hours dancing 
around each others definitions and statements, without once realizing 
that there was no real core difference in our position. It took stepping 
back on my part and presenting a redefinition of the problem.

In our case.. I am not sure I could come up with a redefinition that 
wouldn't dig the hole deeper. The ball would therefor seem to be in your 
court, if you wanted to continue, but, unfortunately, the last few 
attempts you made to describe what you thought "my" position was 
where... Lets just say you where reading things between the lines that 
didn't even involve the same book, never mind printing date. I think we 
are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

-- 
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:
> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 

That was a complement. :-)

> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still talking 
about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be patentable. I'm 
simply saying that right now it is, and I find your assertion that everyone 
including every lawyer on both sides of the argument and all the judges and 
patent examiners are colluding to "forget" that some things aren't 
patentable seems far-fetched.

Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with someone 
willing to discuss shades of grey.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
> 
> That was a complement. :-)
> 
>> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.
> 
> Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still 
> talking about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be 
> patentable. I'm simply saying that right now it is, and I find your 
> assertion that everyone including every lawyer on both sides of the 
> argument and all the judges and patent examiners are colluding to 
> "forget" that some things aren't patentable seems far-fetched.
> 
> Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with 
> someone willing to discuss shades of grey.
> 
Well. In a sense you are correct. It is a should. But its a "should" 
based on a reasonable argument about the nature of software and 
"existing" definitions of what is excluded. The argument isn't that 
there is collusion, its that the nature of software is sufficiently 
complex that one can't simply expect patent lawyers, or judges, to have 
a clear understanding of what it *is*, and under such conditions, its 
all too easy to create a long series of cases supporting it, when it 
should never have been in the first place. That is all that is being 
argued by the Groklaw site too. That the nature of the subject should 
have excluded it, but that most didn't look at it right, and some of 
them may have, due to their own interests, *intentionally* misled the 
patent system into looking at it in a way that supported patents, while 
being careful to derail attempts to argue against it.

And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have wanted 
patents? I would argue that, in most cases, the people involved in such 
cases where "both" companies or individuals, who where arguing not over 
whether someone should own a patent on it, but who. They are hardly, on 
either side, given the number their own law departments already have on 
things, going to argue that the process **itself** is invalid, not just 
the specific patent. I am sure you can think of parallels where this 
has, or could, happen.

-- 
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