Slashdot Mirror
Save the Web From Software Patents
TheNextCorner writes "PersonalWeb's software patent suit against Github and others threatens the freedom of the Web. In order to make sure that the Web can remain a free and accessible space for everyone, we need to rid ourselves of all the patents that threaten its viability. We need to end software patents."
Very informative... at the very least mention this is FSF's viewpoint on the issue. Also, it's ok to write more than 3 sentences. Thank you.
Remember that quite a few powerful companies have built their fortune on abusing the patent system.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I was convinced they were needed, if only for Pharmaceuticals, where the testing time is long but the time to copy short, but now I'm having doubts even there:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
The test for me is the cure for aids vs the cure for limp penis. Patents simply haven't delivered a cure for a major disease in 30 years, they have however invented many ways to get a penis erect and a seemingly endless way to cure headaches.
US is stagnating, down from 1st to 3rd with China taking second spot on the exporters list. This I think is a direct result of strong IP laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
Sounds trollish but I am serious : come in France, or any European country with sane dispositions. VLC could probably not have existed as a US project, or could not have read DVDs.
Show the US government that software patents hurt innovation so much that it causes migration of innovative firms.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
that no one mentioned the very well written article posted on ArsTechnica yesterday about the patent system and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As expected, a very US-centric view on the problem, but it does raise some obvious issues. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/
Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
And only a moron does in a patent case. The law is written to be byzantine and incomprehensible as a make work project for the lawyers, by the lawyers.
It's worse than that. The federal politicians are also mostly lawyers. Obama and Romney both have a J.D.
It's a monoculture, and I don't care how much you like lawyers, a monoculture is not good for the country.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The prevailing philosophy holds that Mathematics is discovered, not invented. This is especially true when referring to reality; if you can choose arbitrary axioms you might be able to invent things. Otherwise, your solution is dictated by your choices.
Even if what you say is true, though, that is not an argument for patents. Empirical studies suggest that patents are used mostly to stifle competition, and their mechanism is fairly anti-capitalist.
Therefore to the degree to which you support patents, you're mostly a douche.
Some humans really love getting more than they give, having lots of power over others and abusing it for the sake of abusing it, and so on.
The overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity likes being as lazy as possible in order to achieve their mediocre existence, never putting themselves out to change things that don't seem like they will make a really huge difference in their own lives. It is *so* much easier to let other people fight the important battles while watching TV and feeling smug after having voted.
The tiny remainder who actually care about justice, and about helping humanity achieve its full potential, are completely outnumbered (by the slothful) and outgunned (by the powerful).
Maybe we will grow out of this someday. Until then, expect widespread failure.
Your logic sucks. Mostly you repeat your premise. You are also as factually wrong as it is possible to be.
Physics, chemistry, and engineering can be modeled using math. The map is not the territory, however: we cannot make mathematically provable statements about reality using these models. For a more detailed view on determinism in quantum mechanics, and uncertainty principle, see elsewhere.
Computer languages are an extension of lambda calculus. Lisp syntax is extremely similar to lambda calculus. Algorithms are straight math. So is binary arithmetic -- which, buried under layers of abstraction, is all your computer really does. It's a pain in the ass, but computer programs can be mathematically proved to be correct (this is not quite equivalent to being bug-free).
What could an algorithm be if not mathematics?
Slashdot may repeat this concept because it is as fundamental to computing as evolution is to biology. In a few simple words you have revealed oceans of profound ignorance. You can either choose to accept reality and grow in knowledge, or deny it and grow in bitterness. But, fyi, this one is sillier than most attempts to tilt at windmills.
I have "invented" many things as have most people, but since I did them at work my employer is the only one who could patent them ,,,
Does this inspire me to innovate? Do I reap the benefits ...?
More to the point did the lack of patents stop people innovating before they were invented?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis