Re: [Patents] Re: [Upd-discuss] SCOTUS Overrules Rigid US AppealsCourt Approach to Patentability of Combinations of Existing Elements

[Philippe Coulonges <cphil@cphil.net>]

Le Sun, 6 May 2007 13:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> écrivait :

> Seth Johnson writes:
> >The MS v ATT finding recognizes that code is the representation of
> >pure abstraction.
> 
> There are many incorrect statements about source code and object code
> in the Microsoft/ATT decision.

Which ones ?

> So it is clear that the Justices don't
> understand the fundamentals of computer science. Applying good legal
> thinking to false science results in a decision impossible to practically
> apply.

Hum. As a computer scientist, I think I do understand these
fundementals. Boole algebra, algorithms, Turing's machine, and so
on.

So, what in these fundementals (or even in Gödel's theorem if you like)
are not "pure abstraction" ? Where is that "false science" ? Do you have
counterproofs ? Real science of your own or by relatives you would like
to present to court and/or pair review to assert your claims, or is it
just some more air-ballooned assertion trying to reach reason-impaired
people into believing your corporate master propaganda ?

CU
CPHIL
-- 
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just as
long as I'm the dictator...."
 -- George W. Bush Dec 18, 2000