🚀 go-pugleaf

In Reply to this Note From: <Craig Burley>
[text deleted]
>If there is an easy way to make such a distinction, then I'd probably be
>entirely in agreement with abolishing software patents entirely.  Perhaps it's
>a simple matter of disallowing patents that are implementable as Turing
>machines?  Please don't get into a discussion of this possibility with me

The Turing Machine rule is not appropriate.  Turing machines are only
used in mathematical proofs of computation issues.  They have little
to do with practical issues of implementation.  Probably many
patentable physical devices can be implmented as Turing Machines, but
that should not qualify them as software.

Software is a set of processes as expressed as machine-readable
informational quantities.  They are distinquished from hardware in
that they do not consist of a physical material, other than the energy
state of a material or a symbol expressed in some other media. 

Software cannot be directly observed by humans, except in some
esoteric media like paper tape.  It usually requires conversion to
light waves to be observed.

Perhaps I should submit this definition as a patent on software
itself?  :-)  -David-

# david@wubios.wustl.edu             ^     Mr. David J. Camp            #
# david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu    < * >   +1 314 382 0584              #
# ...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david      v     "God loves material things." #
# abs (investment#1 - investment#2) << abs (anyinvestment - anydebt)    #