XPost: comp.lang.misc, sci.physics   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 11:42 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:   
   > On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:   
   >>> [...]   
   >>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was   
   >> actually the Z1 of 1937.   
   >   
   > Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that   
   > the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.   
   >   
   > My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable   
   > computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3!   
   >   
   > A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph:   
   > "Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]"   
   > It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing   
   > and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where   
   > the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just   
   > define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior)   
   > system may not match by some detail" (sort of).   
   >   
   > The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing   
   > if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts.   
   >   
   >> [...]   
   >   
   >> It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of   
   >> Zuse (or not).   
   > Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"   
   > isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA.   
      
      
   An invention needs to be new.   
      
   Otherwise it is not an invention.   
      
   At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in   
   Germany.   
      
   The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle.   
      
   The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company.   
      
   This difference can also be found in the difference between US copyright   
   and German 'Urheberrecht'.   
      
   German Urheberrecht is not based on any kind of registration, but   
   automatically granted to the creator of some sort of art.   
      
   And patents can not be registered in Germany, if the invention isn't   
   new, whether 'prior art' is registered, patended or just published in a   
   magazine.   
      
   This is a huge difference, because no formal registration of prior art   
   is necessary.   
      
   In contrast the US patent is mainly a claim and 'occupied' by whatever   
   dirty means necessary.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)