There seems to be rampant confusion between patents and copyrights here. It seems to me that every person who claims that software patents are a good thing doesn't realize that the protections that they are asking for are already afforded by copyrights. (And copyrights are good...that's how the GPL gets its power).
If you write a piece of code, nobody else can copy it unless you let them, that's a fact that I'm sure we all have learned to live with (by inventing the GPL). However, generally you can only patent the algorithms which are used in programs. Obviously (to me anyway) there are several things wrong with this:
1. Algorithms can often be mathematically proven. A mathematical proof is a universal truth, and you can't patent that. After all, you discover truths, you don't invent them. (An invented truth would be a lie:)
2. Algorithms are obvious. Because the basis of computer science is in mathematics, alot of the algorithms are obvious to the people who are smart enough, no matter how much you pay somebody else to discover it.
3. User-interface patents are really just plain bad. The whole industry supports unity of interface.
4. That pretty much leaves protocols. And it's usually in the inventor's best interest to *NOT* patent the protocol, otherwise somebody else is likely to develop their own to save from paying royalties. Then all we have is a bunch of incompatible protocols floating about.
If anybody can seriously say that we need software patents after reading this, I'd be interested in hearing.
If you really get down to it, we have a case of a serious double-standard, or at least a broad sweep of inconsistency. You see, mathematical algorithms can't be patented, because they represent absolute truth (and you can't patent the truth). So when you talk about a company sinking in millions of dollars into an algorithm, they'll have to be happy with the knowledge that they've helped humanity progress.
I think the problem is alot of people are getting confused between invention and discovery. Inventions can be patented (as well they should be) whereas discoveries shouldn't. (Hehe, can't you just see Columbus trying to patent the Americas?) People *discover* algorithms, they don't invent them.
Do you know of any (or can we compile some) resources to help out with the research for the letters? I'd be perfectly willing (as I'm sure many other people would be as well) to write a hand written letter to my representatives if I knew exactly what I was talking about.
If this is true, then why do they mandate that you can't use the data (which is public information, much like telephone numbers) for any other purpose, can't retransmit, can't use a proxy, etc.
Furthermore, they're mandating what every CDDB enabled CD Player must look like. The only way I use the CDDB is through a script, and so these restrictions are completely meaningless to me.
Also, why do they mandate that the CD Player can't use any other source of information? I think this is the clause that worries the most people, because it raises the barrier to entry for any competitor so high, that Escient is creating a monopoly on the CD database market.
Escient doesn't really own any part of the CDDB except perhaps the servers that it resides on. The data is public information, and the format, protocol originated in a GPLed program. I say we start a new project and shut these guys down.
Oh, you're so right, I should just shut up because I have nothing productive to say. In fact, I might as well go kill myself, because obviously I can't contribute to society at all.
Geez. Why don't you offer something constructive...or perhaps *you* need to get an education first? Perhaps you're too afraid to put up a reasonable counter-argument?
To everybody else: I'm sorry about this obviously flammatory post, it's just that kind of post really pisses me off.
Since I'm working towards an Economics minor, I know a little bit about economics, although certainly I'm aware that I don't know everything.
Yes, it is all about money, but not in the way you are thinking. To a business whose interest is in maximizing profit it's all about lowering costs. Hear that? Lowering costs. It's not about paying Microsoft for low quality software just because there's a lot of support (although alot of businesses obviously take that route), it's about finding the cheapest way to produce whatever you produce in the long run.
To a business, the main obstacle to implementing Linux solutions is probably support. These days it's probably not due to application support, but installation and troubleshooting support.
So really you're argument has no legs to stand on. To us, the linux users/gurus/administrators of the world, it IS all about the most stable platform to run your apps on.
Your main argument states that the "Real World" is different because it is all about money, but in reality the real world is more complex than you and I can comprehend. It is not all about money, but a complex set of variables of which money is but a single.
Let me put it to you this way. You have a job to do. You can do it in two ways:
1) Buy the crappy Microsoft solution and live in the endless cycle of buggy product upgrades, hoping the next cycle solves all your problems, but it never does.
2) Implement the inexpensive, more stable, more reliable and often more robust free software solution.
I predict that as businesses start to implement more free software solutions they'll find their costs going down, leading to increased market share and/or increased profits. Therefore these companies will become more successful and eventually dominate the economic landscape.
From what I can tell, the speed of the light travelling through the BEC is dependent on the temperature of the BEC. Now, a few billionths of a degree above 0K is really damn cold. It take an enormous amount of energy to get something that cold (that's why they call it high energy physics!).
I can see using the properties that we learn elsewhere, but don't expect to ever see slow light yourslef...:)
I can see a "Disney Mac" in the future, to replace those palmtops that Apple used to have (do they still have them?) You know some really stupefyingly simple computer that a kindergartener could use. I'm sure if Disney was behind it, everybody but the Southern Baptists would buy one.
Can't see Jobs as CEO of Disney. I'm sure he'd be damn good at it though.
Sendmail I can see. But you haven't lived until you try to configure sendmail, and I'm sure we all know that. But Emacs and Perl? Bloated? I think not. I've never had emacs behave in a slow, buggy or crashy manner which would suggest bloatedness. Yes there are a lot of features I don't use, but how on earth does that make emacs bloated? Hell, it doesn't even *LOAD* alot of the features I'm not using. Just because something is extensible, it's bloated?
Finally, if you're calling Perl bloated. You obviously have never used it for more than half an hour. Perl has got to be the best programming for rapid prototyping. Things that would take hours to program in any other language, takes maybe half the time using Perl.
Frankly, you've got a lot to learn before you go criticizing other peoples software.
I think it would be silly for the government to try to regulate any software maker. Unfortunately, Microsoft may have a point there. However I think there still may be a solution to the problem.
What if the government required all OEMs which sold over a particular number, say $10 million in sales, of computers each year to carry at least two operating systems, available to consumers at the same price. The OEMs could choose whatever OSs they want, as long as they come from different vendors. For example, Windows95, WindowsNT, and Red Hat Linux (or Be, DrDOS, whatever).
Of course, that won't solve it there, but since Microsoft hasn't changed it's prices for a *long* time, the government can force Microsoft (and all vendors for that matter) to charge a certain amount. Just like Airline regulation in the 70s! No seriously, obviously Microsoft isn't forcing down prices so why don't we just make them not force prices down?
That has got to be one of the coolest things I've seen in a while. Can't wait until they see the light of day. Of course, they'll be prohibitively expensive until everything goes LCD...
What ever happened to the Polymer displays? I was especially interested in those back in my Chemical Engineering days. (see my bio)
On my laptop (I have two linux boxes in my 8'x12' room as well. It's nice to be able to play some games as well as hack in emacs at the same time, you know?)
Anyway, the only thing it broke so far was infrared file transfer. But at least I don't have IE on my machine anymore!
You've been using Linux for 2 years and you don't consider yourself a hacker? Then I'd say that a) You either don't administer your system or b) nothing works on your system.
I'd say anybody who successfully administers a UNIX system is implicity a hacker. I consider hacking the act of getting something to work that didn't 5 minutes ago. Whether it be getting some daemons configured properly, or getting something stubborn to compile, they're all elements of hackmanship.
The only reason I wouldn't call Mr. Katz a hacker is because he had somebody on the phone talking him through things. But we obviously don't know the whole story.
More interestingly, I like how his experiences in Linux helped him with Windows. I think this goes very far to prove out point that UNIX teaches people more of a philosophy of computing. That is, there's usually more than one way to do everything, rather than just pointing and clicking until something works.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be rampant confusion between patents and copyrights here. It seems to me that every person who claims that software patents are a good thing doesn't realize that the protections that they are asking for are already afforded by copyrights. (And copyrights are good...that's how the GPL gets its power).
:)
If you write a piece of code, nobody else can copy it unless you let them, that's a fact that I'm sure we all have learned to live with (by inventing the GPL). However, generally you can only patent the algorithms which are used in programs. Obviously (to me anyway) there are several things wrong with this:
1. Algorithms can often be mathematically proven. A mathematical proof is a universal truth, and you can't patent that. After all, you discover truths, you don't invent them. (An invented truth would be a lie
2. Algorithms are obvious. Because the basis of computer science is in mathematics, alot of the algorithms are obvious to the people who are smart enough, no matter how much you pay somebody else to discover it.
3. User-interface patents are really just plain bad. The whole industry supports unity of interface.
4. That pretty much leaves protocols. And it's usually in the inventor's best interest to *NOT* patent the protocol, otherwise somebody else is likely to develop their own to save from paying royalties. Then all we have is a bunch of incompatible protocols floating about.
If anybody can seriously say that we need software patents after reading this, I'd be interested in hearing.
If you really get down to it, we have a case of a serious double-standard, or at least a broad sweep of inconsistency. You see, mathematical algorithms can't be patented, because they represent absolute truth (and you can't patent the truth). So when you talk about a company sinking in millions of dollars into an algorithm, they'll have to be happy with the knowledge that they've helped humanity progress.
I think the problem is alot of people are getting confused between invention and discovery. Inventions can be patented (as well they should be) whereas discoveries shouldn't. (Hehe, can't you just see Columbus trying to patent the Americas?) People *discover* algorithms, they don't invent them.
Do you know of any (or can we compile some) resources to help out with the research for the letters? I'd be perfectly willing (as I'm sure many other people would be as well) to write a hand written letter to my representatives if I knew exactly what I was talking about.
If this is true, then why do they mandate that you can't use the data (which is public information, much like telephone numbers) for any other purpose, can't retransmit, can't use a proxy, etc.
Furthermore, they're mandating what every CDDB enabled CD Player must look like. The only way I use the CDDB is through a script, and so these restrictions are completely meaningless to me.
Also, why do they mandate that the CD Player can't use any other source of information? I think this is the clause that worries the most people, because it raises the barrier to entry for any competitor so high, that Escient is creating a monopoly on the CD database market.
Escient doesn't really own any part of the CDDB except perhaps the servers that it resides on. The data is public information, and the format, protocol originated in a GPLed program. I say we start a new project and shut these guys down.
Oh, you're so right, I should just shut up because I have nothing productive to say. In fact, I might as well go kill myself, because obviously I can't contribute to society at all.
Geez. Why don't you offer something constructive...or perhaps *you* need to get an education first? Perhaps you're too afraid to put up a reasonable counter-argument?
To everybody else: I'm sorry about this obviously flammatory post, it's just that kind of post really pisses me off.
Since I'm working towards an Economics minor, I know a little bit about economics, although certainly I'm aware that I don't know everything.
Yes, it is all about money, but not in the way you are thinking. To a business whose interest is in maximizing profit it's all about lowering costs. Hear that? Lowering costs. It's not about paying Microsoft for low quality software just because there's a lot of support (although alot of businesses obviously take that route), it's about finding the cheapest way to produce whatever you produce in the long run.
To a business, the main obstacle to implementing Linux solutions is probably support. These days it's probably not due to application support, but installation and troubleshooting support.
So really you're argument has no legs to stand on. To us, the linux users/gurus/administrators of the world, it IS all about the most stable platform to run your apps on.
Your main argument states that the "Real World" is different because it is all about money, but in reality the real world is more complex than you and I can comprehend. It is not all about money, but a complex set of variables of which money is but a single.
Let me put it to you this way. You have a job to do. You can do it in two ways:
1) Buy the crappy Microsoft solution and live in the endless cycle of buggy product upgrades, hoping the next cycle solves all your problems, but it never does.
2) Implement the inexpensive, more stable, more reliable and often more robust free software solution.
I predict that as businesses start to implement more free software solutions they'll find their costs going down, leading to increased market share and/or increased profits. Therefore these companies will become more successful and eventually dominate the economic landscape.
P.S. a hotmail email doesn't count.
From what I can tell, the speed of the light travelling through the BEC is dependent on the temperature of the BEC. Now, a few billionths of a degree above 0K is really damn cold. It take an enormous amount of energy to get something that cold (that's why they call it high energy physics!).
I can see using the properties that we learn elsewhere, but don't expect to ever see slow light yourslef...:)
So does this make it sort of like the NIS master server?
I can see a "Disney Mac" in the future, to replace those palmtops that Apple used to have (do they still have them?) You know some really stupefyingly simple computer that a kindergartener could use. I'm sure if Disney was behind it, everybody but the Southern Baptists would buy one.
Can't see Jobs as CEO of Disney. I'm sure he'd be damn good at it though.
Sendmail I can see. But you haven't lived until you try to configure sendmail, and I'm sure we all know that. But Emacs and Perl? Bloated? I think not. I've never had emacs behave in a slow, buggy or crashy manner which would suggest bloatedness. Yes there are a lot of features I don't use, but how on earth does that make emacs bloated? Hell, it doesn't even *LOAD* alot of the features I'm not using. Just because something is extensible, it's bloated?
Finally, if you're calling Perl bloated. You obviously have never used it for more than half an hour. Perl has got to be the best programming for rapid prototyping. Things that would take hours to program in any other language, takes maybe half the time using Perl.
Frankly, you've got a lot to learn before you go criticizing other peoples software.
Did I miss something in the trial...why do we care that Windows98 is faster than Win3.1? Shouldn't they have tested Win98 and win95?
I think it would be silly for the government to try to regulate any software maker. Unfortunately, Microsoft may have a point there. However I think there still may be a solution to the problem.
What if the government required all OEMs which sold over a particular number, say $10 million in sales, of computers each year to carry at least two operating systems, available to consumers at the same price. The OEMs could choose whatever OSs they want, as long as they come from different vendors. For example, Windows95, WindowsNT, and Red Hat Linux (or Be, DrDOS, whatever).
Of course, that won't solve it there, but since Microsoft hasn't changed it's prices for a *long* time, the government can force Microsoft (and all vendors for that matter) to charge a certain amount. Just like Airline regulation in the 70s! No seriously, obviously Microsoft isn't forcing down prices so why don't we just make them not force prices down?
Obviously it needs work, but what do y'all think?
of...err....something...on our 18 Gigs of drive space....
Thank goodness for my logic classes. Now I know that you're all liars. Heheheheh
That has got to be one of the coolest things I've seen in a while. Can't wait until they see the light of day. Of course, they'll be prohibitively expensive until everything goes LCD...
What ever happened to the Polymer displays? I was especially interested in those back in my Chemical Engineering days. (see my bio)
On my laptop (I have two linux boxes in my 8'x12' room as well. It's nice to be able to play some games as well as hack in emacs at the same time, you know?)
Anyway, the only thing it broke so far was infrared file transfer. But at least I don't have IE on my machine anymore!
You've been using Linux for 2 years and you don't consider yourself a hacker? Then I'd say that a) You either don't administer your system or b) nothing works on your system.
I'd say anybody who successfully administers a UNIX system is implicity a hacker. I consider hacking the act of getting something to work that didn't 5 minutes ago. Whether it be getting some daemons configured properly, or getting something stubborn to compile, they're all elements of hackmanship.
The only reason I wouldn't call Mr. Katz a hacker is because he had somebody on the phone talking him through things. But we obviously don't know the whole story.
More interestingly, I like how his experiences in Linux helped him with Windows. I think this goes very far to prove out point that UNIX teaches people more of a philosophy of computing. That is, there's usually more than one way to do everything, rather than just pointing and clicking until something works.
My kind of company. Of course, I'm still in college (only 2 years left)!
Anyway, if you want to wait, you can see my resume at the above URL.