4 ms·
It's very strange. It's also not clear to me why you couldn't construct that any software is a hardware emulation, and therefore use that as a claim of prior ar
by beejiu 3y ago
It's very strange. It's also not clear to me why you couldn't construct that any software is a hardware emulation, and therefore use that as a claim of prior art. Seems to be a fundamental contradiction.
- amelius 3y agoDon't rely on logic in matters involving patents.
- belter 3y agoI will patent this.
- ForOldHack 3y agoI will patent that. The judges being bereft of both intelligence and abundantly full of property and pomposity, I do ordane that both parties and judiciary are far outside of the f*king boat in which they are engaged in rowing. Turn off the machine and show me the circuit? It is not there. It should be copyrightable... But since created by machine, it should not be. Scrooge should come early for them. I shall argue on.
- vintermann 3y agoI'd rather say, don't rely on logic in matters involving judges.
- esrauch 3y agoI'm not sure how the UK avoided software patents before now based on this argument though. As in: - literally implement ANN in hardware - patent it - someone emulates your patented design in software (or even hardware of some parts slightly abstracted to make "emulation" of your patent fast). What happens now? Either all emulatable hardware patents are useless, or there's a backdoor into software patents (synthetically put it in hardware first).
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoSoftware runs on hardware, specifically, computers. There's no non-hardware way to run software. The court is seriously confused and shouldn't be analyzing anything more complicated than a toaster.