4 ms·
If this is upheld, I see all software patents being eventually voided. "as a practical matter" can be attacked by using induction. Do an image transformation o
by russell 15y ago
If this is upheld, I see all software patents being eventually voided. "as a practical matter" can be attacked by using induction. Do an image transformation on a 10x10 image. Do it again on 11x11. Argue that the patent is invalid by induction. Perhaps someone actually has to spend a week the first time on a large image to "prove" induction.
Real time doesnt exist. It means accomplishing a task within a specified interval. If you can do a task in 1 hour and someone else can do it in 30 minutes. It seems to me that it is then possible to argue that doing the same thing in a microsecond on a computer is not patentable.
Perhaps the judges will need a little focused high school math and a lesson on Turing machines.
- nitrogen 15y agoIs there any precedent for courts recognizing mathematical or logical proofs? I was under the impression that courts, by their design, rely entirely on appeals to authority in the form of expert testimony. For that matter, would it be possible to design a court system based on a fully modern understanding of logic, proof, induction, etc., rather than the seemingly ad hoc system we have now?
- gbhn 15y agoFor better or worse, courts are pretty immune to this particular form of induction. That's why you can copyright the sequential bits of a movie, but not the number "0110".