OMG...I just realized something. Sony has these new commercials out saying they are going to revolutionize home entertainment with some new machine. I'll be damned, they're going to make centralized all-in-one boxes that can download music, movies, books, anything. And it'll all be available and encrypted on a pay-per-use basis. And, they will control the encryption all the way up to the output machines. What a lovely thought.
I have to make a distinction between patents for physical processes outside of a machine that is already built which transform matter (as in the Diamond vs Diehr case). These are fine by me since in order to violate the patent, you would have to physically take things outside of the computer and do stuff with them and put materials into them. You could not violate that patent by buying a computer, taking it home, and typing some stuff into the computer. You would need to get raw materials and other machines and process the raw materials in a certain way.
That is a very different situation than the typical software patent where I could buy a computer, take it home, type some things into it, and violate a patent by doing that. That means the patent blocks expression. Remember, a patent is a government document that says "no one else can make or do this without your consent" for a time. If the "this" is "expressing your thoughts", then the patent is a prior restraint on free speech. So, it's a question of whether patents or the first amendment are more important.
I don't like the fact that other companies (or OSS) can come along and "Steal" an idea. However, I have to weigh this against the possible harm from patents. For example, consider the BT hyperlink patent which AFAIR is still being litigated. They _COULD_ choose to sue any one person into oblivion just for making a webpage. That scares me that a company could pick and choose a few people it wanted to destroy, just because thsoe people typed some stuff into their computers. Do you really want to tell everyone that their webpages are not protected speech and that they're patent violators?
It's true that they probably won't be sued, but I tend to look at laws and rules in terms of how they could be abused, instead of how much good they might do.
I just don't see software patent protection being a great deal for the little guy. If you get into this game, you have to assume that all software patents are valid until litigated. That means you should not violate patents, and you should check all patents before you code anything, and when you make changes, to see if you will violate any of them. If so, you should get licenses beforehand. So, you would need to license the BT patent, for example, and also you would have to license the IBM portfolio. Did you do this the last time you started work on a computer program? Probably not. I didn't. If you do this, you won't be able, as an individual, to program anything since you won't be able to afford all the licenses. So, your choices are to get a patent without making a product, or make a product and ignore everyone elses' patents until you have enough to use to defend yourself. I believe that companies take the second tack which means they really don't respect the patent system anyway, since their idea is to hide from everyone until they're large enough to defend themselves. I can't agree with that.
Even better, if I assume that all software patents are valid until litigated, explain how a little guy (me) could start out and write a nontrivial program respecting all patents and making sure that I didn't use any patented technology without a license. Oh, and let's do this without making me spend a huge amount of money. I don't think it's possible.
But this doesn't address what for me is the fundamental problem with software patents. I believe that writing down math on paper is free speech. I believe that writing math on a computer is free speech. I believe that if I choose a specific syntax to write math on a computer, that's free speech.
In order to enforce a software patent, the government must stop me from expressing my mathematical ideas in the ways that I want to. It is no business of the government what machines I use to express my ideas, and then how or why I use those machines in certain ways to express my ideas.
I wouldn't care about "algorithm" patents if they really did apply to building new machines to solve specific problems. Taking an existing machine and flipping the switches on the machine doesn't seem like building a new machine to me.
People seem to make a big distinction between "code" and "speech" as if they are somehow different. The reason they look different now is that machines don't parse language well enough to understand regular human speech. As they get better at it, more and more speech will become illegal.
What if the government starts hassling MS over.NET too much in the future. What if they decide it isn't worth the hassle and just decide to take it offline...
Computer programs are just math algorithms. All computers can do is
arithmetic. By making the computer do a lot of arithmetic in certain
ways, the computer can do some amazing things. However, putting a
picture on a computer screen is just putting numbers into matrices.
Making sound come out of the computer is just sending numbers to a
DA converter which inverts the Shannon sampling theorem.
If I write a math algorithm (math proof) on a piece of paper, is that
considered expression? Yes since I am expressing the mathematical
idea. If I use a computer to write up a math proof for publication,
is that considered expression? I hope so.
If you have an expression of thought and you change the syntax
slightly, does that make the expression with changed syntax not
speech for some reason? For example:
A big dog ran down the street.
A large canine tore along the avenue.
Would anyone consider one of those sentences to be expression and the
other not?
When you write a mathematical algorithm for the sake of the
mathematics, you have a fair amount of freedom in terms of what
symbols you will use to represent things, and how the symbols are
arranged. With computer programs you have less freedom, but you still
have a large number of choices in how things will be
expressed. However, the program is just an expression of the same idea
as the mathematical algorithm, possibly with some syntactical changes.
So, as in the dog example above, if you express the same idea using
equivalent language, both should be protected speech.
So what is it about programming that's different? You use the same
thought processes when you write up a math algorithm whether or
not it's done on paper, on a computer in mathematical syntax, or
on a computer using some programming syntax. The only reason programs
are written in specific ways is that the translators that take
the mathematical ideas and rewrite them in terms the machine can
understand aren't good enough to deal with regular speech. Computers
will probably be able to understand regular speech someday, and
these issues about syntactical changes making code not speech
will disappear. At that point, either we have no free speech,
or everything becomes free speech. Even today, the translators
(compilers) don't change the ideas when they translate the code.
This is evidenced by all the EULA's with prohibitions against
decompiling or disassembling. If the companies didn't think
that the ideas were still embedded in the code translated to
machine language, they wouldn't worry about people trying to
reverse the process.
Generally, a math algorithm is written with
great generality. That is, the algorithm is written in such a way
that the numbers involved are changed into unknowns (variables in
computerspeak) as much as possible. As an example, consider
Y = mx + b. It wouldn't be very useful if this were presented
in math textbooks as Y = 2x+3. What would happen if we wanted
to work with other lines? Do we have to come up with a new
formula or new theorems every time we want to change some of
the numbers? No. We just write algorithms and formulas with
letters or symbols in place of numbers, and we use the letters
to represent numbers we could put into the algorithm.
Here comes the one difference between writing a math algorithm in a
specific syntax that can be translated into a language the machine
can work with and using any other method of expressing the idea
behind that math algorithm:
When you type numbers into the algorithm to use it in a specific case,
the machine will do the arithmetic for you if you have it written
in that specific syntax that it can understand. Otherwise, you have to do
your own arithmetic, and keep track of your own variables by
hand. That's it.
So, there is no extra thought being provided by the machine, it just
does the arithmetic you tell it to do, and the arithmetic it does is
determined by the algorithm you entered into it, and the specific
values of variables you also entered into it. Granted it can do this
arithmetic quickly, but that's all it does. So, if writing down
mathematics is considered protected speech, writing code is also
protected speech, since it's just writing mathematics using a
specific syntax.
That was my point, the only reason to be afraid is
if you are trying to pull one over on MS otherwise it doesn't matter.
Yeah, and why do all these black people complain about cops pulling them over all the time? If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to be concerned about.
:P I'm sick and tired of people who want to turn the US into a police state.
But even then, mathematics is (unlike programming) one of those fields that has a threshold -- a limit to how much a given person will ever be able to understand.
I dunno about this. Programming and doing math are essentially the same thing. You have some tools and pieces that you understand, and you attempt to put them together to make something new. I think the same kinds of limits apply to both areas.
Let's do the math. 55 million Napster users (most in the US). Many more people don't like Napster, but don't like the changes in IP laws. 100 million people voted in the last US election.
God help the corporations if those people ever get pissed off enough to all vote for new candidates who haven't been bought yet.
In fact, it might be time to start this. Link up with the Libertarians, the Greens, and everybody else with a bone to pick with corporate America. Time to join forces.
Re:On behalf of Alanis, the RIAA, and the DMCA...
on
No X Box for Xmas?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, any plurality of software machine process algorithm devices which are implemented using a plurality of hardware machine processing devices which sit inside a plurality of big ugly plastic cubes which also contain a plurality of information or data stored in a plurality of repeated binary forms using the digits 0 and 1 (which are covered under Microsoft patents 4,562,834 and 4,562,835) that puts "10,000 spoons" (or in fact, any plurality of any number of spoons above 7,634), onto a plurality of computational machine photonic signal organization and emission devices via a plurality of electromagnetic energy transferrence conduits is covered under patents 4,234,236 and 5,146,345. And it doesn't matter if you are merely presenting the words "10000 spoons", or if you actually draw 10000 spoons. In either case, you are infringing on the IP space here at LotsaSpoons.com, and we will need your $8675309 royalty check or we will sue you into oblivion. Have a nice day.
Maybe, but once you get to the advanced levels of mathematics, the abstract thinking and the thought processes required to write proofs are essentially the same things needed to write software.
Anyone remember some book where at the end there was this section where some guy named the "AntiChrist" tried to unify all of the world's governments, religions and cultures, and then forced everyone to submit to having the "mark of the beast" placed on them someplace to engage in commerce. Hmm. I don't recall what book that was, but it seems kind of fitting here.
So, assuming all these censorware companies use their own software (why wouldn't they if it's so great:P), how are they going to find out what to censor and what not to censor? They can't upload the FCC webpage anymore because it's filled with all those naughty words. Duh. I can only conclude that these companies sell crap that they themselves would never use. Nice companies.
All they have to do is revoke the Windows licenses of any lawyers who join the lawsuit, and that way the lawyers won't be able to write their documents. They could also keep a sh*tlist of anyone that joins the lawsuit and lock them out of.net.:)
> Why should the matter of storage make a difference?
Because it's _DIGITAL_, and that changes everything. You can't let people have rights once something becomes digital. Geez, haven't you read the DMCA yet?
I'm so glad yet another company has managed to patent configuring switches on a machine with lots of switches. But how many switches does that machine have to have before you can start patenting those arrangements?
Does this mean I can get a patent for turning on a flashlight? (ignoring the obviousness and novelty requirements) After all, I make a "new machine" by flipping the switch, and once the circuit is complete, a process is started whereby the energy/matter stored in chemical bond form gets transformed into energy/matter in light form and this transformation is useful.
And if not, how many switches and how many lights does a machine have to have before you can patent a certain arrangement of switches on that machine that cauess a certain arrangements of light to appear?
Software patents are math patents. It is no great leap of intellect to take these two ideas 1) I have a math algorithm which is not patentable 2) Gee, there are machines that do math problems and then make the great leap "I bet I could do my math problem on this machine that can do math problems" and then get a patent for that. It may be hard to come up with the math algorithm, but the step which takes the unpatentable math algorithm and turns it into a patentable software program isn't that hard. And no, it isn't the step where you actually write the code to make the algorithmwork. The step is where you realize "Gee, I bet I could use this algorithm on this machine." I might actually support math patents if they really did take the algorithms and "Reduce them to practice" by requiring that math patents come with bug free source code for a real product that encompasses the totality of the claims. That way you know that the idea works and that the "inventor" actually did the work.
Math patents are about patenting uses of machines. If you get a math patent, I cannot use my machine to do something which it is capable of doing. That's a very bad idea to take peoples' property like their computers and tell them they cannot do one of the fundamental things that the property can do: create new software. To say that I cannot use my machine in a certain way is a form of takings, just as if you bought beachfront property only to be told that you can't build your beach house there because some random bug lives in the sand. If you have two computers, one of which does not infringe your patent, and the other one does, then the only difference between them is that some of the switches are different. If you really want toclaim that figuring out how to set the switches on a machine is sufficient to get a patent, so be it. But, how many switches does it take? Can I patent turning on a flashlight because I change the arrangement of switches on the machine, and it does something useful, and it somehow manipulates matter by turning on the light? (Ignore the fact that this procedure is well known.) But, if noone had ever turned on a flashlight before, why wouldn't I be able to patent turning it on? Sounds pretty stupid with one switch, so if you like math patents, how many switches do I need to set before I can get a patent on setting switches on a machine in a certain fashion?
Finally, the hypocrisy of anyone claiming that an individual should have their software protected by patents astounds me. There are two cases here.
1) You come up with an idea and don't actually make a workable product, in which case you really shouldn't have the patent anyway since in this case you are not really contributing anything. Youjust sat on your ass and came up with some random idea that probably floated into your head while you were drinking beer, and then other people actually went out and did the real work to make the invention work.
Well, why not employ a simple encryption on the user computers. Then, anyone who wanted to could reverse engineer it, and use those files, but the only time aimster would ever notice or care is if someone hassled them...i.e. if someone admitted that they decrypted the files by attacking aimster. Come to think of it, if aimster doesn't do this, it would be a good addition to the current p2p programs out there. Yes it would be a twink thing to do, but it would also make it impossible to find out what was downloaded to you without breaking the law.
You write a book, and give over your copyright to your publisher. The book pisses off some big company, which buys out your publisher. The big company orders all licenses to the books terminated. This book can never be read or distributed by anyone again, including you. Even if you kept drafts or notes, you still can't distribute the information since it is copyright infringement.
What about compilers? Compilers just take plain text and convert it into a proprietary format, and yet companies do try to control what you do with them. I think this particular battle has already been lost.
Proprietary email formats with simple "encryption". 7 vs 8 bit streams, Reversing letters. Example: MS makes "encrypted" email and forces everyone onto.NET to read email to or from anyone else using MS email.
Compression masks data like encryption. So, creating a program that uses the same wavelet/cosine/zip compression as some company is then illegal? Example: Noone can learn about these methods in school by programming them?
More complex encryption/compression methods use many simpler steps, and the teaching/learning of the simpler steps is outlawed?
Slashdot Mirror
OMG...I just realized something. Sony has these new commercials out saying they are going to revolutionize home entertainment with some new machine. I'll be damned, they're going to make centralized all-in-one boxes that can download music, movies, books, anything. And it'll all be available and encrypted on a pay-per-use basis. And, they will control the encryption all the way up to the output machines. What a lovely thought.
I have to make a distinction between patents for physical processes outside of a machine that is already built which transform matter (as in the Diamond vs Diehr case). These are fine by me since in order to violate the patent, you would have to physically take things outside of the computer and do stuff with them and put materials into them. You could not violate that patent by buying a computer, taking it home, and typing some stuff into the computer. You would need to get raw materials and other machines and process the raw materials in a certain way.
That is a very different situation than the typical software patent where I could buy a computer, take it home, type some things into it, and violate a patent by doing that. That means the patent blocks expression. Remember, a patent is a government document that says "no one else can make or do this without your consent" for a time. If the "this" is "expressing your thoughts", then the patent is a prior restraint on free speech. So, it's a question of whether patents or the first amendment are more important.
I don't like the fact that other companies (or OSS) can come along and "Steal" an idea. However, I have to weigh this against the possible harm from patents. For example, consider the BT hyperlink patent which AFAIR is still being litigated. They _COULD_ choose to sue any one person into oblivion just for making a webpage. That scares me that a company could pick and choose a few people it wanted to destroy, just because thsoe people typed some stuff into their computers. Do you really want to tell everyone that their webpages are not protected speech and that they're patent violators? It's true that they probably won't be sued, but I tend to look at laws and rules in terms of how they could be abused, instead of how much good they might do.
I just don't see software patent protection being a great deal for the little guy. If you get into this game, you have to assume that all software patents are valid until litigated. That means you should not violate patents, and you should check all patents before you code anything, and when you make changes, to see if you will violate any of them. If so, you should get licenses beforehand. So, you would need to license the BT patent, for example, and also you would have to license the IBM portfolio. Did you do this the last time you started work on a computer program? Probably not. I didn't. If you do this, you won't be able, as an individual, to program anything since you won't be able to afford all the licenses. So, your choices are to get a patent without making a product, or make a product and ignore everyone elses' patents until you have enough to use to defend yourself. I believe that companies take the second tack which means they really don't respect the patent system anyway, since their idea is to hide from everyone until they're large enough to defend themselves. I can't agree with that.
Even better, if I assume that all software patents are valid until litigated, explain how a little guy (me) could start out and write a nontrivial program respecting all patents and making sure that I didn't use any patented technology without a license. Oh, and let's do this without making me spend a huge amount of money. I don't think it's possible.
--John
But this doesn't address what for me is the fundamental problem with software patents. I believe that writing down math on paper is free speech. I believe that writing math on a computer is free speech. I believe that if I choose a specific syntax to write math on a computer, that's free speech.
In order to enforce a software patent, the government must stop me from expressing my mathematical ideas in the ways that I want to. It is no business of the government what machines I use to express my ideas, and then how or why I use those machines in certain ways to express my ideas.
I wouldn't care about "algorithm" patents if they really did apply to building new machines to solve specific problems. Taking an existing machine and flipping the switches on the machine doesn't seem like building a new machine to me.
People seem to make a big distinction between "code" and "speech" as if they are somehow different. The reason they look different now is that machines don't parse language well enough to understand regular human speech. As they get better at it, more and more speech will become illegal.
Maybe some things just shouldn't be patented?
What if the government starts hassling MS over .NET too much in the future. What if they decide it isn't worth the hassle and just decide to take it offline...
Computer programs are just math algorithms. All computers can do is arithmetic. By making the computer do a lot of arithmetic in certain ways, the computer can do some amazing things. However, putting a picture on a computer screen is just putting numbers into matrices. Making sound come out of the computer is just sending numbers to a DA converter which inverts the Shannon sampling theorem.
If I write a math algorithm (math proof) on a piece of paper, is that considered expression? Yes since I am expressing the mathematical idea. If I use a computer to write up a math proof for publication, is that considered expression? I hope so.
If you have an expression of thought and you change the syntax slightly, does that make the expression with changed syntax not speech for some reason? For example:
A big dog ran down the street.
A large canine tore along the avenue.
Would anyone consider one of those sentences to be expression and the other not?
When you write a mathematical algorithm for the sake of the mathematics, you have a fair amount of freedom in terms of what symbols you will use to represent things, and how the symbols are arranged. With computer programs you have less freedom, but you still have a large number of choices in how things will be expressed. However, the program is just an expression of the same idea as the mathematical algorithm, possibly with some syntactical changes. So, as in the dog example above, if you express the same idea using equivalent language, both should be protected speech.
So what is it about programming that's different? You use the same thought processes when you write up a math algorithm whether or not it's done on paper, on a computer in mathematical syntax, or on a computer using some programming syntax. The only reason programs are written in specific ways is that the translators that take the mathematical ideas and rewrite them in terms the machine can understand aren't good enough to deal with regular speech. Computers will probably be able to understand regular speech someday, and these issues about syntactical changes making code not speech will disappear. At that point, either we have no free speech, or everything becomes free speech. Even today, the translators (compilers) don't change the ideas when they translate the code. This is evidenced by all the EULA's with prohibitions against decompiling or disassembling. If the companies didn't think that the ideas were still embedded in the code translated to machine language, they wouldn't worry about people trying to reverse the process.
Generally, a math algorithm is written with great generality. That is, the algorithm is written in such a way that the numbers involved are changed into unknowns (variables in computerspeak) as much as possible. As an example, consider Y = mx + b. It wouldn't be very useful if this were presented in math textbooks as Y = 2x+3. What would happen if we wanted to work with other lines? Do we have to come up with a new formula or new theorems every time we want to change some of the numbers? No. We just write algorithms and formulas with letters or symbols in place of numbers, and we use the letters to represent numbers we could put into the algorithm.
Here comes the one difference between writing a math algorithm in a specific syntax that can be translated into a language the machine can work with and using any other method of expressing the idea behind that math algorithm:
When you type numbers into the algorithm to use it in a specific case, the machine will do the arithmetic for you if you have it written in that specific syntax that it can understand. Otherwise, you have to do your own arithmetic, and keep track of your own variables by hand. That's it.
So, there is no extra thought being provided by the machine, it just does the arithmetic you tell it to do, and the arithmetic it does is determined by the algorithm you entered into it, and the specific values of variables you also entered into it. Granted it can do this arithmetic quickly, but that's all it does. So, if writing down mathematics is considered protected speech, writing code is also protected speech, since it's just writing mathematics using a specific syntax.
That was my point, the only reason to be afraid is if you are trying to pull one over on MS otherwise it doesn't matter.
:P I'm sick and tired of people who want to turn the US into a police state.
Yeah, and why do all these black people complain about cops pulling them over all the time? If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to be concerned about.
WTF is "incentivising"?
Nothing. Just means some moron verbed another noun.
What are they gonna do? See your pictures online and sue you?
But even then, mathematics is (unlike programming) one of those fields that has a threshold -- a limit to how much a given person will ever be able to understand.
I dunno about this. Programming and doing math are essentially the same thing. You have some tools and pieces that you understand, and you attempt to put them together to make something new. I think the same kinds of limits apply to both areas.
This is a test for my new .sig.
Let's do the math. 55 million Napster users (most in the US). Many more people don't like Napster, but don't like the changes in IP laws. 100 million people voted in the last US election.
God help the corporations if those people ever get pissed off enough to all vote for new candidates who haven't been bought yet.
In fact, it might be time to start this. Link up with the Libertarians, the Greens, and everybody else with a bone to pick with corporate America. Time to join forces.
Actually, any plurality of software machine process algorithm devices which are implemented using a plurality of hardware machine processing devices which sit inside a plurality of big ugly plastic cubes which also contain a plurality of information or data stored in a plurality of repeated binary forms using the digits 0 and 1 (which are covered under Microsoft patents 4,562,834 and 4,562,835) that puts "10,000 spoons" (or in fact, any plurality of any number of spoons above 7,634), onto a plurality of computational machine photonic signal organization and emission devices via a plurality of electromagnetic energy transferrence conduits is covered under patents 4,234,236 and 5,146,345. And it doesn't matter if you are merely presenting the words "10000 spoons", or if you actually draw 10000 spoons. In either case, you are infringing on the IP space here at LotsaSpoons.com, and we will need your $8675309 royalty check or we will sue you into oblivion. Have a nice day.
Maybe, but once you get to the advanced levels of mathematics, the abstract thinking and the thought processes required to write proofs are essentially the same things needed to write software.
Anyone remember some book where at the end there was this section where some guy named the "AntiChrist" tried to unify all of the world's governments, religions and cultures, and then forced everyone to submit to having the "mark of the beast" placed on them someplace to engage in commerce. Hmm. I don't recall what book that was, but it seems kind of fitting here.
So, assuming all these censorware companies use their own software (why wouldn't they if it's so great :P), how are they going to find out what to censor and what not to censor? They can't upload the FCC webpage anymore because it's filled with all those naughty words. Duh. I can only conclude that these companies sell crap that they themselves would never use. Nice companies.
All they have to do is revoke the Windows licenses of any lawyers who join the lawsuit, and that way the lawyers won't be able to write their documents. They could also keep a sh*tlist of anyone that joins the lawsuit and lock them out of .net. :)
> Why should the matter of storage make a difference?
Because it's _DIGITAL_, and that changes everything. You can't let people have rights once something becomes digital. Geez, haven't you read the DMCA yet?
I'm so glad yet another company has managed to patent configuring switches on a machine with lots of switches. But how many switches does that machine have to have before you can start patenting those arrangements?
Does this mean I can get a patent for turning on a flashlight? (ignoring the obviousness and novelty requirements) After all, I make a "new machine" by flipping the switch, and once the circuit is complete, a process is started whereby the energy/matter stored in chemical bond form gets transformed into energy/matter in light form and this transformation is useful.
And if not, how many switches and how many lights does a machine have to have before you can patent a certain arrangement of switches on that machine that cauess a certain arrangements of light to appear?
This may be true, but their president is the first one not from the PRI, so things may be changing.
Software patents are math patents. It is no great leap of intellect to take these two ideas 1) I have a math algorithm which is not patentable 2) Gee, there are machines that do math problems and then make the great leap "I bet I could do my math problem on this machine that can do math problems" and then get a patent for that. It may be hard to come up with the math algorithm, but the step which takes the unpatentable math algorithm and turns it into a patentable software program isn't that hard. And no, it isn't the step where you actually write the code to make the algorithmwork. The step is where you realize "Gee, I bet I could use this algorithm on this machine." I might actually support math patents if they really did take the algorithms and "Reduce them to practice" by requiring that math patents come with bug free source code for a real product that encompasses the totality of the claims. That way you know that the idea works and that the "inventor" actually did the work.
Math patents are about patenting uses of machines. If you get a math patent, I cannot use my machine to do something which it is capable of doing. That's a very bad idea to take peoples' property like their computers and tell them they cannot do one of the fundamental things that the property can do: create new software. To say that I cannot use my machine in a certain way is a form of takings, just as if you bought beachfront property only to be told that you can't build your beach house there because some random bug lives in the sand. If you have two computers, one of which does not infringe your patent, and the other one does, then the only difference between them is that some of the switches are different. If you really want toclaim that figuring out how to set the switches on a machine is sufficient to get a patent, so be it. But, how many switches does it take? Can I patent turning on a flashlight because I change the arrangement of switches on the machine, and it does something useful, and it somehow manipulates matter by turning on the light? (Ignore the fact that this procedure is well known.) But, if noone had ever turned on a flashlight before, why wouldn't I be able to patent turning it on? Sounds pretty stupid with one switch, so if you like math patents, how many switches do I need to set before I can get a patent on setting switches on a machine in a certain fashion?
Finally, the hypocrisy of anyone claiming that an individual should have their software protected by patents astounds me. There are two cases here.
1) You come up with an idea and don't actually make a workable product, in which case you really shouldn't have the patent anyway since in this case you are not really contributing anything. Youjust sat on your ass and came up with some random idea that probably floated into your head while you were drinking beer, and then other people actually went out and did the real work to make the invention work.
Well, why not employ a simple encryption on the user computers. Then, anyone who wanted to could reverse engineer it, and use those files, but the only time aimster would ever notice or care is if someone hassled them...i.e. if someone admitted that they decrypted the files by attacking aimster. Come to think of it, if aimster doesn't do this, it would be a good addition to the current p2p programs out there. Yes it would be a twink thing to do, but it would also make it impossible to find out what was downloaded to you without breaking the law.
Or the ever-popular [something]sux.com, which a lot of companies miss. wiposux.com seems to be available. :)
You write a book, and give over your copyright to your publisher. The book pisses off some big company, which buys out your publisher. The big company orders all licenses to the books terminated. This book can never be read or distributed by anyone again, including you. Even if you kept drafts or notes, you still can't distribute the information since it is copyright infringement.
What about compilers? Compilers just take plain text and convert it into a proprietary format, and yet companies do try to control what you do with them. I think this particular battle has already been lost.
Proprietary email formats with simple "encryption". 7 vs 8 bit streams, Reversing letters. Example: MS makes "encrypted" email and forces everyone onto .NET to read email to or from anyone else using MS email.
Compression masks data like encryption. So, creating a program that uses the same wavelet/cosine/zip compression as some company is then illegal? Example: Noone can learn about these methods in school by programming them?
More complex encryption/compression methods use many simpler steps, and the teaching/learning of the simpler steps is outlawed?