From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-19 20:34:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:34:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:35:42 -0500 From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: groleau@freeshell.org Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets? References: <33bfd395.0308190954.5b7e296c@posting.google.com> <6kA0b.5574$q9.318397@read1.cgocable.net> In-Reply-To: <6kA0b.5574$q9.318397@read1.cgocable.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.47 X-Trace: sv3-RI2yfK+4cn3cdo9ZfSMzR4jc7GztI2BtAUxz+350eRCzse7JhbpcfexBbQwrdMhrCAsdw64yaZi6oY4!zGzp2SFLTJz8OowZcnSr0Dni7KhRnhubdrEWsiAmlV7RUyxci7CVxl/lnrPH6F3dUa7g0nb5P/Ze!cJw/ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41734 Date: 2003-08-19T22:35:42-05:00 List-Id: >>not easily be classified as a software patent or a hardware patent. I >>beleive there is a law/thereom/postulate/etc. that basically says >>functionality that can be implemented in software can be implemented >>in hardware and visa versa. > > I don't fully buy this idea, though I have not read that > piece of law. How would you classify a computer's memory? > RAM? Core memory? I can only imagine this as hardware. I don't know whether they can handle "any functionality" or not, but there are people "writing" hardware in an Ada-like language (VHDL) and in a C-like language (Verilog).