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).
The Comptroller-General of Patents has an awesome job title and, imho, was right on this (and the judge is wrong).
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.
- 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).
I can't follow the train of thought.
The only kind of software I can imagine that (probably) is not implementable in hardware are uncomputable algorithms such as a halting problem solver.
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.