On: UK court allows ANN patent saying computer program...

[toyg]

Isn't that a bit silly...? Almost any software can potentially be implemented in hardware and be "emulated".

The Comptroller-General of Patents has an awesome job title and, imho, was right on this (and the judge is wrong).

[beejiu → toyg]

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.

[esrauch → beejiu]

I'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 → esrauch]

Software 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.

[amelius → beejiu]

Don't rely on logic in matters involving patents.

[vintermann → amelius]

I'd rather say, don't rely on logic in matters involving judges.

[belter → amelius]

I will patent this.

[ForOldHack → belter]

I 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.

[PartiallyTyped → toyg]

The only case I could potentially see software not being hardware implementable is when it is self-mutating, but even in this case ... FPGAs?

I can't follow the train of thought.

[geysersam → PartiallyTyped]

Humans are implemented in hardware. Any "software" algorithm that could in theory be executed manually by a human can be implemented in hardware.

The only kind of software I can imagine that (probably) is not implementable in hardware are uncomputable algorithms such as a halting problem solver.

[PartiallyTyped → geysersam]

Good catch, also in the same vein, maybe something related to busy-beaver numbers / computations?

[geysersam → toyg]

Yes it's ridiculous. Literally all working software can be implemented in hardware. In fact all working software is implemented in hardware. There's no other way to run software than in hardware.

[ForOldHack → geysersam]

And God made pencil testing for a reason; to sell pencils.

[SenAnder → toyg]

Much like the EU patent convention that also excludes computer programs as such, programs for generic computers routinely get patented. It seems it is the opinion of esteemed patent judges that "as such" means it only applies to programs that do nothing other than exist as computer programs, in some pure, Platonic sense. If they actually do anything, they are no longer "as such" (but if they do nothing, that is not a patentable invention anyway, software or not).

In other words, it is the learned and wise decision of the honored judiciary that the entire sentence excluding computer programs is there just for decoration. Like flavor text on a Magic card. As a layperson I naturally defer to their expert judgement.