5 ms·
The argument is that anything with that equivalence is a processor, which means an emulator is a processor, which means that any patent thats mentions the word
by amalcon 9y ago
The argument is that anything with that equivalence is a processor, which means an emulator is a processor, which means that any patent thats mentions the word "processor" (or equivalent) covers the emulator if it would cover the emulated device. The argument is not that the patent covers all processors.
- ouid 9y agothat's not the church turing thesis then.
- amalcon 9y agoYou're right that it expands upon the C-T thesis a bit, so my use of the word "literally" was incorrect. It does depend on the C-T thesis though, because it relies on a definition of "processor" that references it. You'd still need to explain it to a judge.
- ouid 9y agoWhat do you mean when you say "expands upon"? Either all computers are equivalent or you aren't invoking C-T.
- kpil 9y agoI guess you could also try to use the Church-Turing teorem in a claim that no instruction level patent are enforceable, since they are all equivalent... But this is logic bordering to philosophy, which isn't exactly what the courts love to argue about. They look at intents and damages. My guess is that a simple 'I sell X using my patents, they also sell X but are not paying" is vastly more likely to succeed. "But, but, Church-Turing" will just piss them off.
- _delirium 9y agoWouldn't that make it essentially a mathematical patent, which is not allowed? Or at best a software patent, which is a gray area? Patenting an equivalence class of logical operations, without specificity about their implementation, is on a lot shakier footing than patenting a hardware invention, at least in U.S. patent law. It does lead to wider potential applicability, but at the risk of weaker foundations.