I think you missed the entire point. Someone could have demoed this on an i386, it doesn't mean implementing it on ARM is a novel, patentable invention.
I didn't miss the point, I am saying that there are two points, one of which was addressed in the article, which is that the prior art doesn't have anything to do with the specific hardware implementation, and the other, which the article was happy to leave stated as fact, which is the claim by the foreman that the software couldn't be run on other processors.
The first point is only to do with an incorrect interpretation of the law, whereas the second is to do with being uneducated about the content of the case itself and I felt that techdirt should really have picked up the second point as well as the first rather than treating his assertion about the non-universality of software as somehow valid.
The first point is only to do with an incorrect interpretation of the law, whereas the second is to do with being uneducated about the content of the case itself and I felt that techdirt should really have picked up the second point as well as the first rather than treating his assertion about the non-universality of software as somehow valid.