Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Thanks, that does help.

It almost seems then that written into the definition of non-abstractness is that the idea could be implemented multiple ways. In other words, If there was no possible other way to make a windscreen wiper then the abstract idea itself would be sufficient to specify the actual implementation (or the implementation can be derived as an inevitable logical consequence of the abstract idea). But if we can postulate a different way (perhaps less optimal) then we can say there is an abstractness about the original idea.

I still have trouble with this though because the point where you define the abstractness seems a bit arbitrary. There are many ways to make a wiper blade, a rotating mechanism, a motor, etc. So aren't those abstract too? If the patent specifies it exactly then it is truly concrete, but then it's too specific - competitor can just use a slightly different material.

And then at some point we invent a generically programmable army of nanobots that swarm to accomplish any physical task using a goal oriented AI type language ... and now merely specifying the idea IS the implementation for ANY task.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: