Slashdot Mirror

The silly part is using todays more powerful system as an excuse that you can use it to map to an older more limited system, and that somehow it disqualifies the fact that the system of today did not exist then.

Proof that Software patents are not valid patents? Absolutely! But such absolute proof did not stop the catholic church from promoting Galileo as a heritic. It was the losing of followers that in 1992 the Pope exonerated Galileo, and further stated that there are long running ideas about the religion that may change the understanding of. The point: Proof is not all that is needed and then there cheating in a manner that leaves no proof.

The page I linked to is very clear and straight forward, simple. What is left open is perhaps a little more datail of the action constants that you cannot avoid. There are NINE things we do in any and all things we do.

Basic things of the VIC (Virtual Interaction Configuration)

AI (Alternate Interface) You start or begin things and stop or end things.

PK (Place Keeper) You need to know where you are in doing something, keep track of things, especially if you need to set something aside to do other things before you can go back to something and continue.

OI (Obtain Input) You get things to pass to other things (variables).

IP (InPut from) You select where your getting something from and what to get when you get things.

OP (OutPut to) You select where your sending something to and what to send when you send things.

SF (do StufF) You do things a step at a time, even when your doing more than one thing at a time, each you do a step at a time. And the things you do can be or include doing the nine things.

IQ (Index Queue) You look up what things mean, and use the meanings to (SF) "do StufF". Often the meaning is from a Selected Abstraction Set.

ID (IDentify things) Sometimes you gotta know what something is before you know what to do. So you test things to see what they are. Once you know what something is, you can (SF) "do StufF".

KE (Knowledge Enable) When looking up or testing something (IQ and ID), you may only want a certain part of it. This "KE" helps you narrow down what you want to look up (IQ) or test (ID). When you look up a word in a dictionary, you limit your search to the section starting with the first letter of the Word.

These NINE things can easily be made available in the form of computer functionality, easy for us to use.

And With This we can Automate The things We Do thru computers. We can organize and automate our use of abstraction sets through The Abstraction Tool (Computers).

And on to your next comment:

"Writting letters" and "hording it to myself"? Try doing a google search on "Timothy Rue" and "Patents"
I'm even a wikipedia entry...

If the above is not enough, try: http://threeseas.net/vic/html/ and there is plenty more

Yes computer science is a bunch of information transforms, but its the underlying "mechanics" that provide simpler and more powerful control over automation, including the automation of software creation.

You can break down the heap sort yourself into terms of of where you use what of the nine action constants. But know that these constants are as a carrier wave, not the specific signal they are passing.

If you and your professors really are against software patent, then the only way to to undo them is to help map the prior art of Free Software, Open Source Software, etc.. For just like the catholic church and Galileo, its about popularity in use.

Try joining in on http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/priorart-discuss/
and check out the associated http://developer.osdl.org/dev/priorart/wiki/index. php/Main_Page

But you are anon coward so you'll have to hunt this thread down to see any response, which you probably will not do, and that makes you a troll.

Why am I on slashdot? Considering the USPTO sometimes makes use if it......go figure...

Its a matter of what you do with what you find on the internet and with technology.

This was done in genuine #2 pencil by a human hand http://www.threeseas.net/pencil-nude.jpg
This was done to try and correct bad caring for the artwok http://www.threeseas.net/pencil--nude.jpg

But today technology can take a photo from a cell phone and make it look like pencil.
So only to a collector might such work be of value.

Then there is the talent in photography to produce the original photo.
Honestly, a student genuinely interested in the media of pencil by the human hand, then they will pursue it.

So what it means is that we simply have more interested as collectors or at least observers.

Its a matter of what you do with what you find on the internet and with technology.

This was done in genuine #2 pencil by a human hand http://www.threeseas.net/pencil-nude.jpg
This was done to try and correct bad caring for the artwok http://www.threeseas.net/pencil--nude.jpg

But today technology can take a photo from a cell phone and make it look like pencil.
So only to a collector might such work be of value.

Then there is the talent in photography to produce the original photo.
Honestly, a student genuinely interested in the media of pencil by the human hand, then they will pursue it.

So what it means is that we simply have more interested as collectors or at least observers.

...be applied to Free Open Source Software.

Thought its not quite MLM..

http://threeseas.net/mind/CDM.html
though I didn't include a date in the text, the file is dated OCT 14 1998 on teh server.

and there is this too:

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/ms g/d46560fa21fbc352?hl=en&

Walker??? It always reminds me of taking a dog for a walk or something old people use.
There is not much modularity in it except for teh insinuation of the name...

try this instead, and instead of the article topic too.... I mean, what will some digital DRM media look like when it gets shrunk down and flatten out? A CD/DVD??? So what are they really saying? That they want to sell you a harddrive with every movie??? And lets not for get about whether or not you can take it with you when you visit you friends.

Granted they following is from the year 1997.... but the concept is far more valid than what the article is about. And if you want to forget Amiga, then replace its name with LINUX (my main OS's at home today)....shrug... its about hardware....

http://threeseas.net/mind/pics/ModularA.gif

The Amiga seems to be the computer that fits into all the
cracks, gaps and holes in reguard to the computer industry. As such it
is difficult to fill the wants and needs of so many when it comes to
packaging. It does seem that one thing everyone wants is
expandability.

I believe there is a workable solutions that most will find
satisfactory and perhaps as a pleasent suprise. The concept is to
produce the Amiga into parts or blocks that may be attached and even
re-configured to fit the packaging needs of many. Such configuring
abilities certainly would increase the versatility of the system as
well as allow users to expand their system as they see fit.

I think from the manufacturing and service perspective, cost
would be reduced as a result of dealing with standard packaging blocks.
Electronically, the Amiga seems to have it's Amiga primary board, an
ability add/enable board and a CPU board. The Amiga primary board would
be standard in all Amigas where the ability add/enable board is used to
add or make available additional features of the Amiga. The CPU board
of course may also contain ram expansion and scsi or IDE interface. The
variables here would be the ability add/enable board and the CPU board
and this will allow price differences with the Amiga block.

The blocks attach to each other through a slot that is
accessable from both the top and bottom of the right side of the
block (see dark gray slot panel cover on the units top right side,
back-side top for the lap-top and hidden in the set top base.) There
is a "T" pass-thru card the internal boards plug into, which has a card
edge connector on it's top and bottom edge. The blocks are connected
using what would be a double sided card edge connector. Securing the
blocks together is done by removing the light blue rubber molding,
behind which is the securing screws. This rubber molding also functions
as the feet so the tower/stacked system, or even the desk-top may be
layed/sat on it's side (preferably on the right side, due mounting
direction of the cards that internally plug into the T pass-thru card.)

The systems in the image:

Lap-Top - Though not a slim unit but more like a small brief-case,
uses the standard Amiga Block (bottom), Floppy-plus block (may contain
up to two hard-drives), Key-board (full size standard), LCD panel (near
the size of a 13" monitor.) The block on the lower far end is the
battery pack and external port pass-thru. Additionally the LCD pane

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

hardware needing to get to a certian point.

Amiga. Blitter (bimmer!). Copper (co-processor!). 1980s. Cool.

from my own web page created late 1996---

PROBLEMS IMPORTANT TO SOLVE

Attention Getting Points

------ FROM ------

COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95

Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"

** In The U.S. Only **

$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete

$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%

16% success - project success and failure ratio

61% customer requested features and functions make it in

Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going, instead of new, better, easier to use software.

---- Overall ----

Problems - all-around lack of complete documentation and weak training, faulty user input and feed back - self contradictory user request, lack of project leadership between developers and users, management created problems and low quality control standards, feature creep and software size increase, advancing technology rate of change and lack of general standards, solutions around the corner but never arrive and our tools are better than theirs attitude, lack of a value chain structure for value added abilities, failure to produce a functional model before coding and constant remodeling, etc.

Solution directions - code re-use, object oriented programming, component-based programming, distributed components, better tools, better programming methodologies, leaner software, a splitting of code writer types into two catagories - architects and assemblers, better effort to establish a working vocabulary between developers and users so users can in some way lead development, etc.

---- A Few Comments from Panel Members ----

A culture needs to evolve that respect software engineers as crafts-people. Writing code is not just writing code but like the field of writing where you have technical, creative, documentary, etc., there are different types of code writing. (Authors' note: I agree with this but also realize end users are even more specialized in what they need and do. Respect for the end user needs and abilities is needed even more so. Without respect given to the end user, the software engineer will not be given respect in return.)

A fundamental change in the programming environment needs to happen that allows the tools to work together more. (Authors' note: the panel member making this comment, did not specify what tools or who the tools would be used by. It was a very general comment pointing to a fundamental programming environment change. A lead in to the concept of componet programming. But, there was no recognition given to the concept of componet software or componet applications. At least not in the sense of being outside of "plugins". Read on!)

Jokingly - one of the best ways to copy protect software is to put it in a dll, give it an obscure name and put it in the windows system directory. Because you'd never find it. (Authors' note: This does not make it any easier for the end user in keeping their system organized, clean and optimized. This attitude of constraints, though humorous, cost end users alot.)

The meaning of "intellectual property" became questioned. Did it mean you take the best ideas or something owned? (Authors' note: it was the panel supporting "best ideas" but wouldn't the correct term for this use be "intellectual value" rather than "intellectual property"? What would happen, regarding this, in a court room? The audience member whom brought this up, was a bit angry about the distortion. Her question was: Is it the developers whom are creating the problems? And what are the developers going to do about it? The responce was "that's not the problem!")

Users shouldn't develope software but know, better than the developers, what they want and need. (Authors' note: users don't have the time to write code, it's not their job or duties!!! I can cut the lawn, I know how, but if I don't have th

...that which is not to their credit

I wrote this in late 1996 and even more can be found here regarding autocoding and I'm sure there is plenty more I can bring up.

Hey MS, how come you don't understand teh concept of "Credit where credit is due", Hmmmm?

...and then understanding when and where this purpose is being abused, contridicted or even out of date with the changing world economy.

Here are some patent information clips from the USPTO

Note the last paragraph: "Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage creative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men."

And consider how FOSS supports that better then what MS has been proven to contridict that, in courts around the world.

Maybe a little old but hindsight is better sight.

From my own Web page

PROBLEMS IMPORTANT TO SOLVE

Attention Getting Points

------ FROM ------
COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95
Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"
** In The U.S. Only **

$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete

$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%

16% success - project success and failure ratio

61% customer requested features and functions make it in

Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going,
instead of new, better, easier to use software.

---- Overall ----

Problems - all-around lack of complete documentation and weak training, faulty user input and feed back - self contradictory user request, lack of project leadership between developers and users, management created problems and low quality control standards, feature creep and software size increase, advancing technology rate of change and lack of general standards, solutions around the corner but never arrive and our tools are better than theirs attitude, lack of a value chain structure for value added abilities, failure to produce a functional model before coding and constant remodeling, etc.

Solution directions - code re-use, object oriented programming, component-based programming, distributed components, better tools, better programming methodologies, leaner software, a splitting of code writer types into two catagories - architects and assemblers, better effort to establish a working vocabulary between developers and users so users can in some way lead development, etc.

---- A Few Comments from Panel Members ----

A culture needs to evolve that respect software engineers as crafts-people. Writing code is not just writing code but like the field of writing where you have technical, creative, documentary, etc., there are different types of code writing. (Authors' note: I agree with this but also realize end users are even more specialized in what they need and do. Respect for the end user needs and abilities is needed even more so. Without respect given to the end user, the software engineer will not be given respect in return.)

A fundamental change in the programming environment needs to happen that allows the tools to work together more. (Authors' note: the panel member making this comment, did not specify what tools or who the tools would be used by. It was a very general comment pointing to a fundamental programming environment change. A lead in to the concept of componet programming. But, there was no recognition given to the concept of componet software or componet applications. At least not in the sense of being outside of "plugins". Read on!)

Jokingly - one of the best ways to copy protect software is to put it in a dll, give it an obscure name and put it in the windows system directory. Because you'd never find it. (Authors' note: This does not make it any easier for the end user in keeping their system organized, clean and optimized. This attitude of constraints, though humorous, cost end users alot.)

The meaning of "intellectual property" became questioned. Did it mean you take the best ideas or something owned? (Authors' note: it was the panel supporting "best ideas" but wouldn't the correct term for this use be "intellectual value" rather than "intellectual property"? What would happen, regarding this, in a court room? The audience member whom brought this up, was a bit angry about the distortion. Her question was: Is it the developers whom are creating the problems? And what are the developers going to do about it? The responce was "that's not the problem!")

Users shouldn't develope software but know, better than the developers, what they want and need. (Authors' note: users don't have the time to write code, it's not their job or duties!!! I can cut the lawn, I know h

Nothing like mass subsconscious programming...

The metaphors and analogies to the real will be exposed.

This rabbit hole goes alot" DEEPER and gets REAL and comment #4 protected

See comment #4 from a .doc file on the USPTO site OR an html version of that comment
More information on use of project
and the project home page

There be plenty of metaphors and analogies HEAR and here + search engine on member 46..

See comment #4 from a .doc file on the USPTO site OR an html version of that comment
More information on use of project
and the project home page

There be plenty of metaphors and analogies HEAR and here + search engine on member 46..

See comment #4 from a .doc file on the USPTO site OR an html version of that comment
More information on use of project
and the project home page

There be plenty of metaphors and analogies HEAR and here + search engine on member 46..

using computers to put things together...

Programming is the act of automating complexity by putting simpler complexities together, and done so to make it easy to use and reuse the complexity.

The act is very recursive and common knowledge even reaching the second nature level.

This makes it clear that there has been a major failure of computer science to recognize even the most fundamental physics of programming.

Most software patents are not valid once bounced off the wall of what cannot be patented, for the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of our creating and using abstractions is three for thre what cannot be patented. And we can add to this mathmatical algorythims... making it four for four.

and teh patent office shoudl damn well know this already only the psuedo computer science does back it up, because it is biased by the money carrot.

Hmmm, interesting..

Considering what is found here and here? and also here.

Modular Systems for text description and images of different configurations

Over six years ago....

Modular Systems for text description and images of different configurations

Over six years ago....

the mode of connection that provides access to things like browser plugin and propogation of viruses and worms....

As a fair counter balance it means the public in general must now be informed about this third user interface (shell and GUI are the first two) and provided easy and sensible usable access to it as well as being able to open or close such ports as IPC uses.

the three User Interfaces

The point of the IP laws was to help provide incentive to innovate and there were limitation on just how long those monopolistic rights were to be enforceable.

Today, though the advancement of technology means the shorter the time span of technology is useful, the IP monopolistic rights have been extended. Where the only way to extract value after initial integration is to take the laws to their extream and to a degree never intended by the founders.

At the heart of the arguement is not SCO vs. the world but IP laws applied today vs. their original intent.

The simplist statement of original intent is that "of benefit to society"

And not to be used in a manner of ...

"Unfair Competition

The repression of unfair competition is directed against acts or practices, in the course of trade or business, that are contrary to honest practices, including, in particular:

* acts which may cause confusion with the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* false allegations which may discredit the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* indications or allegations which may mislead the public, in particular as to the manufacturing process of a product or as to the quality, quantity or other characteristics of products or services;
* acts in respect of unlawful acquisition, disclosure or use of trade secrets;
* acts causing a dilution or other damage to the distinctive power of another's mark or taking undue advantage of the goodwill or reputation of another's enterprise.

Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage creative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men.
"

Seems to me that GNU and GNU/Linux reaches that last sentence far better than SCO can possible achieve in their lawsuit and claims against Linux and the world.

Maybe SCO thinks the last word "men" is exclusively them.

The Natural laws of the Physical Phenomenon of our creation and use of abstractions is what he is trying to nail down.

But it has already been identified and being developed as a general user based automation tool. Useful in many ways, including in teh development and use of an autocoding environment.

See Virtual Interaction Configuration and even some of my journal listed /. posts for more information.

It's nice to know..... exactly where many seem to be headed. Unfortunate for them that they seem to be, in one way of another, off course, even just a little over a long ways makes a big difference.