Yes, I completely understand that Ohm's Law is a "fundamental" electronics principle. That's why I labeled it as such. There are lots more formulas that go into constructing circuits, such as calculating the voltage across a rectifier, circuit tuning with resistors, capacitors, and inductors, and a whole mess of things I never got into (being a CIS major rather than an EE major) in detail. If I need an explanation of that stuff, I just call my cousin who works for NVidia, who does deal with microcode on a daily basis.

With regards to circuits, yes, the hardware-based circuits do not change according to software, but only a fraction of what is there is actually in use at any given time. The circuits as a whole do not change, but the software directly manipulates WHICH parts (paths) of the circuits are active at any given time, and it is the sequence of activation of the circuits that gives instructions for processing and eventually ends up with output that is useful. Hardware is a tool - a VERY complex tool with lots of possibilities, but without the software (instructions for use), it is a very expensive paperweight. Just as software by itself is digital noise if it has no method of execution.

My primary point to dbhalling is that he/she is attempting to contend that only the hardware is patentable. My contention is that neither can be separated from the other without rendering the other useless. As a practical example, I would challenge someone to create a hardware-based database - my professional forte.

It's not a Chinese menu. Your religeous 'philosophy' consisting of part stealing from Ayn Rand and part contradicting it is incoherent.

Software is not a "bunch of words" and the compiler is itself a program, not an electronic circuit. None of it is "wiring instructions". All the components are fixed in hardware, including the interconnects between the components (there are no literal "wires", feature sizes are on the order of microns to nanometers and printed on the circuit board in layers in a process similar to a photographic development - it doesn't move and the circuit layout does not change.)

I did not say that you said it. I said it, and it is not an "inverse". Stop telling me what I "would know" if "only I thought about it". The condescending talking down to people is not helping you, and neither is vague repetition of appeals to 'conservation of mass and energy'. It is repetition of the obvious, especially to those of us who understand science and technology very well, with no explanatory value provided for philosophy of law for distinguishing what is patentable and what is not. Whatever your success in the field of patent law, you are driving away technically and scientifically knowledgeable people who support intellectual property rights and have been trying to discuss it with you.

Switches do not rewire a circuit, they are components that are part of a circuit. But a switching circuit in a computer means that the transistors change the binary states which they represent by the voltage differences across them. Logic circuits in computers operate with binary signals represented by voltages at the lower and upper range, with several elements employed to control each transistor. The states change with each increment of the clock, with a different state for each step of the program (at the machine language level). It is these voltage states that are "switched" from one logical configuration to another. They do not not "rewire the circuit". Whatever you are trying to say you aren't using the correct terminology.

Switches do not rewire a circuit, they are components that are part of a circuit. But a switching circuit in a computer means that the transistors change the binary states which they represent by the voltage differences across them. Logic circuits in computers operate with binary signals represented by voltages at the lower and upper range, with several elements employed to control each transistor. The states change with each increment of the clock, with a different state for each step of the program (at the machine language level). It is these voltage states that are "switched" from one logical configuration to another. They do not not "rewire the circuit". Whatever you are trying to say you aren't using the correct terminology.

Yes I "actually learned electronics", mathematics, computer science, physics and engineering. You should stop demeaning and talking down to people who know far more about these technical subjects than you do. Your misrepresentations, whether through unintended misuse of terminology or lack of conceptual understanding, are not helping you to defend your theories of the principles of patents, even to those of us who already thoroughly support intellectual property rights.

Mathematics is a system of abstract principles understood by human consciousness as a branch of knowledge, not an "answer" and not something that "just sits on a page". It is objective and repeatable independent of whoever does it, and like any other principles in any field does nothing by itself. Calling it "descriptive" does not distinguish it from any other knowledge.

The design of a light bulb doesn't do anything by itself either. It is the specific way a light bulb is designed that might be patented, not a particular light bulb. Even a particular light bulb doesn't work "by itself". It is designed to function with a specific range of current and voltage, which must then be supplied for it to work.

The explanations you are trying to give here to characterize patents are not working and not properly describing and distinguishing the subject matter you are addressing.

No knowledge or design does anything by itself (and neither does a computer program). Mathematics is no more or less "descriptive" than any other knowledge. It does not characterize mathematics.

When a cryptographic method has been patented, it is the use of the mathematics that is prohibited without a license from being implemented for cryptography, not a particular computer program or even a specific set of algorithms used for the program. That is what the battle over pgp was about. If that is to be defended it will take more than saying mathematics doesn't do anything by itself.

I did not say that. Stating the inverse does not follow. All Apples are fruit, does not mean all fruit are apples.

Every invention is a combination of existing, known elements is absolutely true - something you would know if you just thought about conservation of energy and matter.

Sure it is. That is why they are called circuits. Did you actually learn any electronics?

Mathematics is not patentable because it does not do anything by itself. It is descriptive

No mathematics is descriptive. It has an objective answer, but it does nothing by itself.

A light bulb puts out light by itself when the correct electrical signal is applied.

Of course it does that is why they are called switches.

Of course it does. That is why they are called switches.

A system in which anyone is free to hire a private firm to enforce agreements (on their own) is anarcho capitalism. It may be construed as a form of "government", like any kind of statism pursuing non-objective law, but neither are the kind of limited government that is proper.

All material production is a recombination of existing physical reality. There is no where else to get it from. Not every recombination of existing components is patentable.

Very simple circuits are based on ohms law, but that law refers to the relation between current and voltage ( from which power can then be derived) when the resistance is linear. Electronic circuits require much more.

There are also some serious terminology problems here. Software does not create or change "circuits". The circuits are printed on the boards and remain fixed. As a program runs, it sequentially directs changes in the states of the devices as defined by the voltages in the switching circuits.

When a program is run on a different computer with a different OS the circuits are not necessarily the same, but the interpretation of the states must be. So software is more abstract than a particular hardware implementation.

A good book for you to read that elaborates on how this works in both the logic and the solid state physics is The Feynman Lectures on Computation. With your background you would have no trouble understanding it and would find it very interesting the way Feynman explains it and puts it all together (and some of it you will already be familiar with)..

I did not say that "purely mechanical machines are not patentable". I said that "not every design" is.

Software is not a "way of wiring an electronic circuit". It controls the different states of a fixed, physical circuit when it is run on the computer. But it is the specific software that does that when loaded into the computer. An algorithm is abstract knowledge and cannot do anything until someone implements it by coding it in a specific way.

If mathematics were patentable, it would require that we not think in correct principles claimed to be owned by someone else, who could legally prevent it. Fortunately, mathematics is not patentable.

Mathematics _is_ the logical systems it deals with, not a "description" of it as if it were something else apart from the mathematics. It _is_ objective and _is_ repeatable, independent of who does it. It is knowledge, held in human consciousness, not something that "just sits there on the page".

Changing the states of the transistors does not "rewire the circuits". You have no business accusing anyone of "not understanding how software and computers work" and being "being unqualified to comment" for rejecting it.