It is a mathematical algorithm. You have e.g. a compression algorithm which takes a compressed photo as input and calculates the pixel color values to use in order to display a picture of a cat on a monitor. It is an algorithm. The algorithm, the software, is not a picture of a cat (or a window with menu bars, or a web page, etc.) The picture of a cat is just the output of the algorithm. People are too easily confused by this.
Lets flip this around: The court considers mathematical algorithms abstract. Noting that it enables you to achieve the very practical utility of posting on this forum, is the software running your computer abstract?
The obvious answer is that our definition of what is an algorithm and what is abstract differs from the court's.
The thing that allows you to post on this forum is the prior art computer hardware. The software only tells the hardware what you want it to do.
Moreover, your formulation is erroneous. Concrete things can do abstract things. The fact that a particular braking system can slow down a car does nothing to establish that "slow down a car" is not an abstract idea. It clearly is an abstract idea.
> The thing that allows you to post on this forum is the prior art computer hardware. The software only tells the hardware what you want it to do.
The software "only" tells the hardware what you want it do? That is the most important thing! Without software the hardware does absolutely squat.
Here's another way to think about this: imagine you invented the lever. The thing that allows you to move heavy objects you could not before, is the prior art of a log and a rock. The beam-and-fulcrum arrangement "only" tells the rock and log what to do.
> Moreover, your formulation is erroneous. Concrete things can do abstract things.
Non sequitur. Anything can be abstracted to an arbitrary degree. A very specific type of a screw with a very exact shape made of a very specific alloy can be abstractly defined as a "fastening component." That does not mean nothing is patentable.
> The fact that a particular braking system can slow down a car does nothing to establish that "slow down a car" is not an abstract idea. It clearly is an abstract idea.
Yes, but it's clearly not an abstract mathematical algorithm, which is what my parent post was questioning. Parent was wondering how software consisting of algorithms that are "abstract" can be patented. My point was precisely that the "abstract" that the court has in mind is very different from the "abstract" that we have in mind when talking about algorithms. "Slow down a car" is a different type of abstract from "E = MC^2", even though they are both abstract.
> Here's another way to think about this: imagine you invented the lever. The thing that allows you to move heavy objects you could not before, is the prior art of a log and a rock. The beam-and-fulcrum arrangement "only" tells the rock and log what to do.
I found a small rock and a stick and I told them to move a big rock but nothing happened. I think you need to do something more than communicate information to them to get them to produce leverage.
That's the fundamental difference with software. A computer takes an algorithm and an input and produces an output. For example, you might take an image decompression algorithm and a compressed image and produce raw pixel values. The important fact is that the algorithm and the compressed image and the uncompressed image are all purely information. It's the difference between knowing something and doing something. Computers cause information to be created, but information is not supposed to be patentable, and there is nothing else there to patent other than information.
> Non sequitur. Anything can be abstracted to an arbitrary degree. A very specific type of a screw with a very exact shape made of a very specific alloy can be abstractly defined as a "fastening component." That does not mean nothing is patentable.
No, but what it means is that if you're going to say "fastening component" instead of providing anything more specific, that should not be the only part of your claim directed to patentable subject matter.
> My point was precisely that the "abstract" that the court has in mind is very different from the "abstract" that we have in mind when talking about algorithms.
Even if that were true I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. Algorithms are all different kinds of abstract. And as soon as you make them specific you're straight into mathematical formulas and laws of nature.
Apologies for the late reply, I check in infrequently.
>I found a small rock and a stick and I told them to move a big rock but nothing happened. I think you need to do something more than communicate information to them to get them to produce leverage.
Yes, you configure the log and rock to produce leverage. Just as you do a computer for it to do anything useful. You may think of it as "just information", but this configuration undoubtedly produces practical results via physical processes.