First, drug patents are in fact not recognised; chemical compounds cannot be patented. Drug patents tend to take the form "A machine..."
So founders of the patent system felt that chemical compounds should not be patentable, but what these drug companies are doing? Protecting chemical compounds in a roundabout way. Ain't it abuse?
Machines are different precisely because they are specific physical objects
Ah, but chemical compounds are also specific, physical, and not generalisable. How come they are not patentable and machines are?
will only be convinced otherwise when I see a significant "open source"
effort which isn't a clone of something produced elsewhere.
You are using one right now. It's called World Wide Web. If you are using a commercial browser, be aware that it's a clone of an open-source product. Maybe much improved, but nevertheless a clone.
There are a lot of good books on this subject; some of which are only slightly longer than this series of books. I really recommend you read
one.
I'm completely lost here. What books? What series? --
So we agree that if you arrange machine instructions in some innovative manner, this ought to be non-patentable. Now please tell me why arranging atoms to produce a drug, or arrange toothwheels and pulleys and what-have-you to produce a mousetrap, is any different?
Imagine a machine that, given a chemical formula and some supply of atoms, can synthesize a substance to that formula. Now the formula starts to look a lot like a computer program, doesn't it? Imagine further that such a machine is affordable to a regular household. Wow, no more expensive patented drugs!
Or imagine a machine that, given a drawing of a part and some metal, can produce such part... wait, such machines already exist! The drawing is a computer program, and your CNC-whatever is just another peripheral device!
All in all, I don't see a lot difference between programs and physical object designs. And whatever difference exists now will only diminish in the future.
Patent laws worked well for physical objects. Now they work not-so-well. In the future they may stop working at all. --
Huh? Hello? What intellectual property has to do with physical items? It doesn't matter what you invent, a better mousetrap or a better software emulator of mousetrap. IP covers IDEAS, not physical mousetraps.
Oh well. Solar panels got nothing to do with all this shit. You can tell it from the subject line -- it says offtopic right there, see? --
No, no, no, no. Uranium is not created in solar cores. Not in any significant quantities. Iron and lighter elements are.
Only when the star goes supernova (or probably nova, I'll have to check) heavier elements are created. Then they get incorporated in newborn stars and planets.
So we can safely say that nuclear power is pre-solar power.
You are right about winds. Tides are due to gravity (and they can be a source of energy too). --
Andrew Wiles may need very little, but think about particle accelerators and radiotelescopes. Should "intellectual property" derived from use of these little devices be protected?
How many tons of rare metals Metallica needs to practice its arts? Should the fruits of their labour be free for all to use?
I can't tell you exactly what's wrong, but I feel that something is wrong. Maybe it's the 20 year span which should be more like 3 years nowadays. I don't know.
Please forgive me this vagueness; I'm a programmer, not IP expert.
For your amusement, here's an excerpt from my future article (currently in a very draft form) that I'm preparing for a local e-zine (local as in located in a small country very far from any civilization center). Share and enjoy. No copyright on this piece of shit:)
Andrew Wiles is a mathematician. His greatest
achievement is a proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem. He worked on this proof for many years
(most of his life in fact). Many other people
helped him along the way, but he remains the
principal author of the proof.
NOBODY CONTROLS THE WILES'S PROOF. IT IS FREE
FOR EVERYONE TO COPY. I can write a book
about FLT and include his proof in it. Or I can
take his proof and use it as a basis to prove
some other theorem. (Well, in theory at least;
I'm not a number-theorist.) He will not get a
dime from me. He can't do a thing about it, and
it looks like he couldn't care less.
What's going on, people? A creative man that
doesn't own fruits of his creativity, nor he
wishes to! Maybe he's not compensated justly?
No, it doesn't seem like he's starving, or has
any plans to abandon his work as a mathematician
due to lack of compensation. So we have this
line of reasoning which says "if creative people
cannot control their work, they will not be
compensated and will either starve or abandon
their creativity", and it must be flawed because
here we see a flat counterexample.
Of course most mathematicians on this planet are
just like him: they are creative, they don't
control the fruits of their creativity, and they
are happy with this situation.
Does someone have any idea about how much such a computer would cost mass-produced? I have a few applications in mind beyond wearing one as a wristwatch... --
Re:Why do you guys make such a big deal about this
on
Mozilla M17 Is Out
·
· Score: 2
Well I'm using netscape too. Not because IE is unstable, but because I don't have the money to hire someone fulltime to port it to IRIX. --
It's a pity I don't know who you are. I'd send you a dollar. Sandboxed.
Oh, yes. I'm a complete fucking moron. Does it boost your sense of absolute moral superiority? Sandboxed. If not, let me know. I'll post some more. Sandboxed. --
You honestly don't believe napster's (as a company, not a program)
I honestly believe that the current topic is Liability for Programmers. Napster the company is a different issue altogether. I won't discuss it here because it's offtopic.
Napster the program is designed to share.mp3 files across the network, and I don't see how it's more illegal than your friendly httpd. --
Aha, I see what you mean, but it's still wrong. Anyone can do chown root foo.
Anyway, you don't need a separate database. You need an SQL interface to your filesystem (which should support user-defined attributes to be truly useful). --
If I write a piece of software which sole (or biggest) purpose is to help other people engage in illegal activities then why should I not be as
liable for it as a drug dealer is for the drugs he sells?
If you do so, be my guest and consider yourself liable. I have yet to meet such a piece of software. (I know what Napster is, thank you.) --
Static linking is an option, but not the only one.
You can link dynamically, distribute all needed libraries, but install only those not already installed (check with a secure hash). If it's already there, make a symlink.
Linking is not the only problem. Many programs communicate with scripts or run other programs. You have to make sure they are ok, or install your own versions.
DLL Hell is there. Linux is no different from Windows in this regard (it can and should be better of course).
Sandbox the installer properly, and whoops! -- your troll (it is a troll, right?) becomes just another perfectly valid opinion. For, you see, "list of places to install stuff" is just a very limited form of interpreted sandboxed code. The funny part is, it doesn't have to be limited or interpreted. Those are just the easiest means to have it sandboxed.
In the end the installer just has to put stuff where it belongs, and probably modify some kind of registry (or setup files or whatever). If it needs to execute some code in order to determine what exactly to do, then so be it. Just don't let the executed code do any damage. This way we can have more robust, but still perfectly safe, installer. --
Obviously it can only mean "the author of the software", because a "regular" person usually cannot tell C++ from a hole in the ground and therefore cannot prefer one to another. So if you really prefer to write in uncommented, obfuscated assembler and can prove it in a court of law, go ahead. This is my interpretation of course (IANAL; TINALA; IYNOTTALLIYJ). --
Read the GPL. "Source code" means "preferred form for making modifications". If you habitually write programs in objdump format, then objdump is source for you. Otherwise, sorry. --
as long as you don't distribute the app and the lib together (as parts of the same package). In practice it also means that you should link dynamically.
GPL governs distribution of GPLed code. If you don't distribute any, you are not affected by GPL. --
Slashdot Mirror
--
Imagine a machine that, given a chemical formula and some supply of atoms, can synthesize a substance to that formula. Now the formula starts to look a lot like a computer program, doesn't it? Imagine further that such a machine is affordable to a regular household. Wow, no more expensive patented drugs!
Or imagine a machine that, given a drawing of a part and some metal, can produce such part... wait, such machines already exist! The drawing is a computer program, and your CNC-whatever is just another peripheral device!
All in all, I don't see a lot difference between programs and physical object designs. And whatever difference exists now will only diminish in the future.
Patent laws worked well for physical objects. Now they work not-so-well. In the future they may stop working at all.
--
Oh well. Solar panels got nothing to do with all this shit. You can tell it from the subject line -- it says offtopic right there, see?
--
Only when the star goes supernova (or probably nova, I'll have to check) heavier elements are created. Then they get incorporated in newborn stars and planets.
So we can safely say that nuclear power is pre-solar power.
You are right about winds. Tides are due to gravity (and they can be a source of energy too).
--
- Andrew Wiles may need very little, but think about particle accelerators and radiotelescopes. Should "intellectual property" derived from use of these little devices be protected?
- How many tons of rare metals Metallica needs to practice its arts? Should the fruits of their labour be free for all to use?
(Burn karma burn--
I can't tell you exactly what's wrong, but I feel that something is wrong. Maybe it's the 20 year span which should be more like 3 years nowadays. I don't know. Please forgive me this vagueness; I'm a programmer, not IP expert. For your amusement, here's an excerpt from my future article (currently in a very draft form) that I'm preparing for a local e-zine (local as in located in a small country very far from any civilization center). Share and enjoy. No copyright on this piece of shit :)
--
--
The AT&T backing was discussed in one of the comments to that article IIRC...
--
michael was here.
--
Does someone have any idea about how much such a computer would cost mass-produced? I have a few applications in mind beyond wearing one as a wristwatch...
--
Well I'm using netscape too. Not because IE is unstable, but because I don't have the money to hire someone fulltime to port it to IRIX.
--
0.000772 miles per hour is excellent if you're drilling a 24' diameter hole in solid steel.
Now, is writing code morle like the former, or the latter?
--
IYNOTTALLIYJ -- If You Need One, Talk To A Lawyer Licensed In Your Jurisdiction.
--
Is it configurable? My IRIX box has no quotas (it's my personal box) and I can give away files. Can it be stopped?
--
Ctrl+Alt+Down
[XEmacs: elisa]
Ctrl+Alt+Down
[XClock: Mon Aug 7 10:44:49 EDT 2000]
"It's 10:44"
"Thanks"
Ctrl+Alt+Down
[Enlightenment received signal SIGSEGV]
--
It's a pity I don't know who you are. I'd send you a dollar. Sandboxed.
Oh, yes. I'm a complete fucking moron. Does it boost your sense of absolute moral superiority? Sandboxed. If not, let me know. I'll post some more. Sandboxed.
--
I honestly believe that the current topic is Liability for Programmers. Napster the company is a different issue altogether. I won't discuss it here because it's offtopic.
Napster the program is designed to share .mp3 files across the network, and I don't see how it's more illegal than your friendly httpd.
--
Anyway, you don't need a separate database. You need an SQL interface to your filesystem (which should support user-defined attributes to be truly useful).
--
If you do so, be my guest and consider yourself liable. I have yet to meet such a piece of software. (I know what Napster is, thank you.)
--
--
In the end the installer just has to put stuff where it belongs, and probably modify some kind of registry (or setup files or whatever). If it needs to execute some code in order to determine what exactly to do, then so be it. Just don't let the executed code do any damage. This way we can have more robust, but still perfectly safe, installer.
--
$ PATH=/usr/executables:/home/myname/executables NAME /home/myname/executables); NAME)
% (set path = (/usr/executables
Why do you need a database? If every software bundle ends up in one of very few places, the list of these places becomes your PATH.
Also, "owned by root or by me" is wrong.
--
Obviously it can only mean "the author of the software", because a "regular" person usually cannot tell C++ from a hole in the ground and therefore cannot prefer one to another. So if you really prefer to write in uncommented, obfuscated assembler and can prove it in a court of law, go ahead. This is my interpretation of course (IANAL; TINALA; IYNOTTALLIYJ).
--
Read the GPL. "Source code" means "preferred form for making modifications". If you habitually write programs in objdump format, then objdump is source for you. Otherwise, sorry.
--
GPL governs distribution of GPLed code. If you don't distribute any, you are not affected by GPL.
--