the best way for the inventor (or his sponsors) to personally benefit from the invention was to keep it secret as much as possible.
Give an example of a technology that was kept so secret by its original inventor that it had to be rediscovered by someone else. Just one will do.
the general speed of technological development has been MUCH faster after the introduction of patents compared with before
I believe this reasoning is called "post-hoc ergo propter hoc". The pace of technological also accelerated after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I guess all we need to encourage innovation is the regular destruction of major Japanese cities.
Besides, I'm not sure that it's even true. Many of the major technological breakthroughs of the past 150 have never been patented. It would never have occured to Crick and Watson to patent their knowledge of the structure of DNA, or for Einstein to patent the creation of nuclear power through mass-energy equivalence.
And true, there have been many tech breakthroughs driven by patents in the last century, but are any of them more staggering than the isolation of new elements, the discovery of Periodic Table, the theory of radiation or the structure of the nucleus, or the germ theory of disease, electromagnetism, or Archimedes' Screw, or the wheel, or... Well, you get the idea.
Would the chemical battery had developed as fast as it did if Volta had patented the technology and tried to charge Davy, Faraday, Carlisle et al, instead of publishing in a journal for the general good of mankind? Would that have encouraged scientific progress, or discouraged it? [Clue : it's the latter]
It may seem like technology is growing exponentially, but it seems to me the number of distinct "Eureka" moments in the 20th don't massively outnumber those of the 18th.
If the rate of progress has increased, it's because technology begets technology : microscopy => structure of the atom => electon microscopy, and because political, social and economic reforms have opened up science to a class beyond the professional dilletante.
It's been moderated Troll at least once, so it might have been a disastrous failure as a joke, but it was a joke. I was trying to point out the idiocy of the "no patents = no innovation" arguments that some people (i.e. corporations with massive patent portfolios) sometimes try to spin on people.
It was a double joke, as it occured to me that many slashdotters are so ignorant of history, that they seem to belive that everything important was invented in the USA in the past 75 years.
If now patents on software are acceptable for "physical inventions that use software"
being applied to a physical invention is not enough. The patent would have to apply to the physical control of that device. So, to take your example of a scanner or webcam : If you wrote a new algorithm that controlled how the webcam followed a moving person in its field of vision, or -- thats patentable. If your invention is simply a novel way of storing or compressing the image data -- that has no physical manifestation and is solely concerned with pushing data about, so it's not patentable.
Or at least, that's what I think, having read the Financial Times' analysis of the changes.
Would it catch things like JPG compression which isn't software?
IANAL but... I don't think pure algorithms would be patentable under the revised rules. To be patentable, the novel part of the software would have to involve something that controls a physical device or force of nature. (So I could patent my new heuristics that control my vehicle assembly plant, but not something that takes one lot of data and converts it into another lot.)
Everyone knows that patents encourage innovation, and that without patents, no one will have a financial interest in inventing new things, and so everyone will find other jobs.
Lack of patents and copyright is the primary reason why absolutely nothing was invented prior to the mid-19th century.
Yeah, that's a perfect solution for this case, but this thing (lots of people sending one video message) is the exception, not the rule. Usually individual soldiers are going to want to send individual, private video messages back to their loved ones.
I'm surprised so many mail systems are even allowing 50MB+ eMails going out.
Do you really want to be the IT guy who takes the call that says: "Hi, I'm with British Army operations in the middle of Iraq, and my soldiers here -- who are getting shot at on your behalf -- are really fucking annoyed that they can't send video messages home because it's possible that there may be some mild Quality of Service issues at your office in Slough".
I imagine this happens all the time. When you get a load of married men, take them away from their families and dump them in a shithole army camp middle of the desert, where a significant proportion of the local population wants to kill them, it's in your interest to keep them sweet.
One way to do that is to allow them to send lengthy video messages back home to their families.
In such cases, it makes sense for compassionate considerations to trump technical considerations (and after all, it's only this freak occurence that's buggered it. The systems worked pretty well for the last two years.)
No they're not. The MoD have basically said "It was a massively abnormal surge, and it was pretty damn funny", so everyone's going to get off scott-free.
Which is good, because the video is hilarious. They showed bits of it on the BBC news last night.
All the freaks are the most vocal and the moderates just sit back quietly and let the zealots speak for them
Or, as the poet wrote:
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Find me a single nice thing I've ever said about John Dvorak, and you have a valid point. Until then, you're attributing someone else's opinion (that Dvorak has insight and intellect) to me.
Consider the following application of Dvorak's thought processess:
Fact : many Christian groups believe abortion is wrong Fact : A small number of Christian groups contain wackos who advocate killing abortionists and blowing up abortion centres and who issue death threats against them Deduction : the Christian Church is slowly evolving into a state of mob rule, with the cheerleaders being paranoid crackpot leftovers from the waning days of the Spanish Inquisistion
"The Benny Hill Show" started on the BBC in 1955, but transferred to ITV in 1969. The ones that are seen in the US are entirely from the ITV run, and with many of the ruder bits cut out.
actors are concerned that rampant piracy would result in lower wages and fewer acting jobs
It's more likely that they're balking at the fact that on-demand video won't supply them with the repeat fees that they get when shows are rebroadcast by traditional means.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, I'm not sure that it's even true. Many of the major technological breakthroughs of the past 150 have never been patented. It would never have occured to Crick and Watson to patent their knowledge of the structure of DNA, or for Einstein to patent the creation of nuclear power through mass-energy equivalence.
And true, there have been many tech breakthroughs driven by patents in the last century, but are any of them more staggering than the isolation of new elements, the discovery of Periodic Table, the theory of radiation or the structure of the nucleus, or the germ theory of disease, electromagnetism, or Archimedes' Screw, or the wheel, or... Well, you get the idea.
Would the chemical battery had developed as fast as it did if Volta had patented the technology and tried to charge Davy, Faraday, Carlisle et al, instead of publishing in a journal for the general good of mankind? Would that have encouraged scientific progress, or discouraged it?
[Clue : it's the latter]
It may seem like technology is growing exponentially, but it seems to me the number of distinct "Eureka" moments in the 20th don't massively outnumber those of the 18th.
If the rate of progress has increased, it's because technology begets technology : microscopy => structure of the atom => electon microscopy, and because political, social and economic reforms have opened up science to a class beyond the professional dilletante.
Erm. That was a joke.
It's been moderated Troll at least once, so it might have been a disastrous failure as a joke, but it was a joke. I was trying to point out the idiocy of the "no patents = no innovation" arguments that some people (i.e. corporations with massive patent portfolios) sometimes try to spin on people.
It was a double joke, as it occured to me that many slashdotters are so ignorant of history, that they seem to belive that everything important was invented in the USA in the past 75 years.
Or at least, that's what I think, having read the Financial Times' analysis of the changes.
Everyone knows that patents encourage innovation, and that without patents, no one will have a financial interest in inventing new things, and so everyone will find other jobs.
Lack of patents and copyright is the primary reason why absolutely nothing was invented prior to the mid-19th century.
Yeah, that's a perfect solution for this case, but this thing (lots of people sending one video message) is the exception, not the rule. Usually individual soldiers are going to want to send individual, private video messages back to their loved ones.
Yeah, the one where Bart seduces Mrs Krabappel by pretending to be Gordie Howe.
Duh.
Stuff that, I'm going to start talking about the 11/9 terrorist attacks.
Reading comprehension's not really your forte, is it?
Damn right.
Thanks. The crapflood kept your post off the radar long enough for me to snarf the whole file...
I imagine this happens all the time. When you get a load of married men, take them away from their families and dump them in a shithole army camp middle of the desert, where a significant proportion of the local population wants to kill them, it's in your interest to keep them sweet.
One way to do that is to allow them to send lengthy video messages back home to their families.
In such cases, it makes sense for compassionate considerations to trump technical considerations (and after all, it's only this freak occurence that's buggered it. The systems worked pretty well for the last two years.)
That's not the whole video, just the news item featured in yesterday's flagship BBC news program.
No they're not. The MoD have basically said "It was a massively abnormal surge, and it was pretty damn funny", so everyone's going to get off scott-free.
Which is good, because the video is hilarious. They showed bits of it on the BBC news last night.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
W B Yeats, The Second Coming
Find me a single nice thing I've ever said about John Dvorak, and you have a valid point. Until then, you're attributing someone else's opinion (that Dvorak has insight and intellect) to me.
And that's really fucking stupid.
.. remember to give him a wedgie, for old times sake.
And there's only one thing wrong with that logic.
It's complete bollocks.
"The Benny Hill Show" started on the BBC in 1955, but transferred to ITV in 1969. The ones that are seen in the US are entirely from the ITV run, and with many of the ruder bits cut out.
If iTunes has taught us anything, it is that DRM can be completely crossplatform.