4 ms·

> When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in any way, shape, or form. It was never limited. But that is untrue, on two levels! Firstly,

> When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in any way, shape, or form. It was never limited. But that is untrue, on two levels! Firstly, at the physical level: by programming the computer you are physically changing it. You are changing the electronic charges on a multitude of molecules arranged at very specific locations in a very specific manner. This, in turn, when activated by other specifically applied charges, controls changes to yet other charges on other molecules at other very specific locations as these charges are evaluated by the laws of physics and the arrangements of various conducting materials connecting these molecules. Secondly, at the functional level: these patterns of charges can be evaluated, by humans or other machines, to represent useful information, and hence the exact same circuit with different patterns of charges can be used as a word processor, a gaming machine, a media player, a database... Consider the converse: without any such charges lighting up any of its circuits, the computer can do literally nothing. It is wholly limited. I completely agree that the computer's potential utility is never limited -- except maybe by our imaginations. However, that could be said for a hunk of metal or a slab of wood too. > By programming it, you are doing exactly what it was built to do: Be programmable. By fashioning steel into various shapes, I'm doing exactly what steel was created to do: be malleable when very hot but very rigid at room temperatures. Yet every new shape given to steel, from rods to blades to ball bearings to I-beams to frying pans, has enabled a new use. By combining various atoms of elements in different configurations, I'm doing exactly what they were meant to do: bond with each other. Yet every new combination could result in a brand new compound. What something could do has no bearing on what is inventive. Inanimate things do precisely nothing until we invent a use for them. All technological development is the creative use of things doing what they are meant to do, arranged to achieve things that we want them to do. > Enlarging the center for spatial processing in cabbies is something the brain was meant to do. ... They did nothing but exercise their normal skill in spatial reasoning, and their brain did all the actual work. True, but their brains have become physically different from ours, optimized for spatial reasoning. You could in fact say that, with the right programming, they became special-purpose brains.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fpgeek 12y ago
Hold on. You can't just say: Computers are implemented physically, so grounding a patent in a computer-based implementation makes it a physically-grounded patent. If you want something physically-grounded you'd have to say: I want to implement this idea on that specific computer with these specific physical manifestations. And even if you got that patent, it would be effectively worthless. Changing what we view as trivial details of the implementation (e.g. swapping a Pentium for a Pentium Pro) would totally change the physical manifestations at the level of electrons and molecules. In other words, that would completely avoid any claims in the patent that are described at the physical level. And the minute you retreat to considering claims at the functional level (i.e. what our collections of electrons and molecules mean) you're no longer talking about doing something physical to achieve a useful result: you're talking about combining abstract ideas with a wide range of possible physical implementations to achieve a useful result, which is something entirely different.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  This is true for most physical inventions. Machines, for instance, may be claimed as a particular configuration of physical components, but the invention is not restricted to any precise composition materials used in those components unless the claims require it. Indeed, claims often don't even mention the materials being used. For instance, you can use any comparable material or fluid to provide the necessary mechanical support or hydraulic force. Replacing, say, steel (or oil) with any other alloy (or incompressible fluid) with comparable properties will not allow you to sidestep the essence of the invention. This is analogous to switching one processor to another: it makes no difference because they are equivalent. As such, pretty much all patents (except maybe those on compounds) are abstract to some degree: they all claim a useful application with a wide range of possible physical implementations. This is covered by the Doctrine of Equivalents, which specifically exists to prevent non-infringement through trivial workarounds. The counterbalance to this is that in examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation to find as much prior art as possible. For instance, examiners are free to use equivalent elements in the prior art to read on those in the claims.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fpgeek 12y ago

Hold on. You can't just say: Computers are implemented physically, so grounding a patent in a computer-based implementation makes it a physically-grounded patent. If you want something physically-grounded you'd have to say: I want to implement this idea on that specific computer with these specific physical manifestations. And even if you got that patent, it would be effectively worthless. Changing what we view as trivial details of the implementation (e.g. swapping a Pentium for a Pentium Pro) would totally change the physical manifestations at the level of electrons and molecules. In other words, that would completely avoid any claims in the patent that are described at the physical level. And the minute you retreat to considering claims at the functional level (i.e. what our collections of electrons and molecules mean) you're no longer talking about doing something physical to achieve a useful result: you're talking about combining abstract ideas with a wide range of possible physical implementations to achieve a useful result, which is something entirely different.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
This is true for most physical inventions. Machines, for instance, may be claimed as a particular configuration of physical components, but the invention is not restricted to any precise composition materials used in those components unless the claims require it. Indeed, claims often don't even mention the materials being used. For instance, you can use any comparable material or fluid to provide the necessary mechanical support or hydraulic force. Replacing, say, steel (or oil) with any other alloy (or incompressible fluid) with comparable properties will not allow you to sidestep the essence of the invention. This is analogous to switching one processor to another: it makes no difference because they are equivalent. As such, pretty much all patents (except maybe those on compounds) are abstract to some degree: they all claim a useful application with a wide range of possible physical implementations. This is covered by the Doctrine of Equivalents, which specifically exists to prevent non-infringement through trivial workarounds. The counterbalance to this is that in examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation to find as much prior art as possible. For instance, examiners are free to use equivalent elements in the prior art to read on those in the claims.