This isn't inventing anything. It's simply an optimized boot routine. This demonstrates once again why there should be NO SUCH THING as a "software patent". Software should be covered purely by copyright law. There's 20 different ways to skin a cat in software, but if you abstract it all down to basic concepts where there is only one way to do something, all you do is STAGNATE technology so nothing moves forward for fear of lawsuits on everything you do. Big companies like Apple don't have to worry about these kinds of lawsuits, but small companies would go bankrupt in no time being sued on all ends for trivial patents on basic concepts like moving data over the internet via a button in HTML that transfers sales data from a computer to a centralized server. THAT is the kind of BS that hurts everyone (except the patent holder, of course). Exactly how else could you run an online store except to transfer sales data via HTML to a server that handles the transaction? Yet I seem to recall reading about such a patent very recently involving iPhone Apps....
A patent should be something like a
specific method to achieve fusion using lasers. If someone else can do it another way using lasers, that should be a separate patent. The former patent should not cover every possible method to achieve fusion using lasers and fuel pellets. The specifics are everything. It can be the difference between a viable reactor and one that uses more power than it produces. A reflecting telescope is a different animal than regular one, yet they both share common science. If a patent covered "magnification through lenses", that would cover everything from microscopes to the Hubble space telescope. It's just too darn broad.
