4 ms·
Cars, then?
by dllthomas 3y ago
Cars, then?
- lotsofpulp 3y agoAnalogies are not necessary all the time.
- dllthomas 3y agoIndeed. My intent with my comment was to jokingly nod in that direction.
- AlbertCory 3y agoNo analogies. It is what it is. Markush groups, as GP mentioned, are there specifically for chemical patents. So that's what's shaped the patent law, not software or cars.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIt's purposefully a kind of algebraic notation. Algebra is math, particularly a kind of math that maps really well to software (less so, cars). Hence the analogy makes sense.
- AlbertCory 3y ago"Everything can be mapped to software" Perhaps, but chemistry is chemistry. It existed before software did, and you need to understand it on its own terms.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoWell yes, and. It's apples and oranges. And FWIW, chemistry is only a little bit older than software. Like most other fields - there was a qualitative jump in the last ~100 years; arguably we didn't know shit about anything before the 20th century, before the theoretical and practical tools converged to allow some kind of formalized, precise knowledge and experimental work.