> For hardware implementations, the judgment notes there is no program to which the program exclusion
Puzzling argument. This logic can apply to every single computer program (i.e. it can be implemented in hardware), which means the exclusion will never apply, which means the judge's reasoning is wrong.
But he has a "Sir" in his title.
That is guaranteed to ensure maximum accuracy and flawless logical thought.
I've no problem burning some karma on this one, the "BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES" are basically a shop to "buy a judgement" from somewhere sounding authentic. Absolute scam.
To whoever "won" the appeal, well done, you have a software patent, "good luck"; in his opening article he even points out to you in his opening statement this can't be applied to program for a computer. Money well spent eh.
Puzzling argument. This logic can apply to every single computer program (i.e. it can be implemented in hardware), which means the exclusion will never apply, which means the judge's reasoning is wrong.