On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
Hi Ross,
Are you suggesting by stating the above axiom that algorithms are
_simply_
ideas and that for this reason alone they shouldn't be patentable?
Yes I am, you've got it.
An algorithm is unsufficiently concrete to deserve a patent, it is an
abstraction, a generalisation.
Andy, what kind of "thing" (if any) would you say *is* patentable?
must such a thing be a physical object?
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
