🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2884766D.3AAD@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
>In <1991Jul17.154708.1942@news.larc.nasa.gov> burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
>
>>[some stuff about particular problems with software patents and
>>obviousness vs. non-obviousness deleted]
>
 [...more stuff deleted...]
>
>While I don't disagree with your points about the subjectivity of
>obviousness and the way people seem to be using patents these days, I
>don't think the scenarios you imagine in your second paragraph could
>come to pass.  My understanding is that patents can only be granted
>for implementations of an idea, not the ideas themselves.
>
>-- 
>Milt Epstein
>Department of Computer Science
>University of Illinois
>epstein@cs.uiuc.edu

Okay, but what is meant by implementation? where does an idea stop and
the implementation of that idea begin? Take for example some basic
theory in physics, such as "Force is related to the mass of an object and
the acceleration of that object..." obviously, this is an "idea". In
specific notation, F = M * A. Now this equation presents a methodology
for determining "force" given "mass and "acceleration", i.e. an
"algorithm". Now, I can sit down with a pencil and paper and
determine the value for F given M and A, based on methods (algorithms)
for multiplying 2 numbers. I can also use a calculator to multiply the
numbers together (implementation in hardware?). I can also program a
computer to exactly duplicate the steps taken to multiply the numbers
by hand. I can burn that program into a ROM (again, hardware
implementation), or I can create a chip to do that particular
calculation. Now, where is the dividing line between the idea and the
implemtation? At the equation level? at the hand calculation level? at
the calculator level? at the software level? at the ROM level, or at
the chip level? In the above example, the computer program is a direct
replacement for me, a pencil and paper. Why should the computer
program be patentable and NOT me doing it by hand? The *only*
difference is that I'm *not* using a machine, I *am* using the same
"algorithm" to solve the same "problem". The idea that just because
I'm using a computer to solve the problem makes it patentable is
ludicrous!!! 

With machinery, implementation is easy to
determine... you can take a picture of it, you can hold it in your
hands, you can weigh it...with an algorithm or idea, you can't hold
it, you can't weigh it, you can't take a picture of it. Oh, sure, you
can take a picture of the computer used, but the computer IS NOT THE 
ALGORITHM!!!

The problem
with patenting algorithms is determining where the idea ends and the
implementation begins. This is a subjective decision on the part of
the patent office, and the problem we've seen so far is that patents
are being awarded on the ideas, not the implementation of those ideas,
and because of the subjectivness of whats an idea, etc, the courts are
upholding those patents.


John

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Burton                                                        |
| G & A Technical Software                                           |
| jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov                                       |
| burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov                                        |
| jcburt@cs.wm.edu                                                   |
|                                                                    |
| Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those  |
|             of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+