A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Mathematics is considered a matter of fact, something which cannot be patented.
OK, you *are* missing something. Mathematics is *not* a "matter of fact", it is an abstract (and thus arbitrary) method of conceptualizing objects and relations: a conceptual tool, if you will. An algorithm is an idea that can be expressed mathematically, but it is still an *idea* and cannot be patented. However, a *physical process* which *implements* an algorithm is material; as long as it is "non-obvious" and "useful", it *CAN* be patented. You have confused ideas and objects here.
I see that you are still baffled -- let me explain. Take the cotton gin, patented by Eli Whitney: a rotating wheel which strips the seeds from cotton. Such a device can be expressed in mathematical terms, but that is not an invention. The algorithm for cleaning cotton can be expressed in words, but that is not an invention. The cotton gin itself -- a useful device for cleaning cotton -- can be constructed and used; at the time that it was patented, it was "novel" and "non-obvious to an expert in the field", so it met the test for patentability.
OK, say I develop an algorithm for, say, factoring numbers faster than current methods. I can express it mathematically -- not patentable. I can write down a verbal algorithm for doing it -- also not patentable. But now say I implement it as a software program, where it is used to factor numbers. Useful? Yes. Novel? Yes. Non-obvious to an expert in the field? Yes. Thus: patentable.
The fact that it is an implementation of *an* algorithm is irrelevant: all patented inventions *are*, at some level, because every invention implements a sequential process of some kind, and an algorithm is just a listing of a sequential process.
* You'd probably want to exclude felons and the legally insane.
[joke]Well, that would make all current members of Congress ineligible.[/joke]
Seriously, though, since 1/3 of all African-American men are in prison, on probation, or on parole, and African-Americans make up about 12% of the population, African-Americans would only have 5/6s of their population eligible to serve. [Assumption: most African-American women are not in this 1/3 group.] While this is somewhat better than the original Constitution, where they were only counted as 3/5s of a person, it is still disproportionate, and hence unfair. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "felons", but I would be willing to guess that most Americans believe that someone who has been imprisoned on a felony charge should *never again* be allowed to vote.
I don't agree, however, and I would argue that the 15th Amendment:
[Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ]
makes it clear that the act of barring ex-felons from voting is, on its face, UNconstitutional.
In 1986, my dad -- an agriclimatologist -- worked on a report for the DOE, analyzing the impact of global warming upon crop regions and yield. Even then, the temperate perimeter had moved northward. I asked him to give me a quick overview of what global warming would bring. His reply was chilling:
"Hotter summers, colder winters, and more intense hurricanes. But we can't rule out a sudden (say, within a century) plunge into a little ice age, if the ice caps at the poles melt, causing the earth to lose too much albedo from the loss of the reflective ice caps. Also, glacial runoff from Greenland could stop the warming North Atlantic current and make northern Europe uninhabitable, like in the last big ice age, which ended 11,000 years ago."
So far he's been right. Not that that's a good thing.
First of all, thank you for your quick and thoughtful response.
Please give examples of software developers which have been harmed by software patents.
Earthlink (Mailblocks v. Earthlink), and Microsoft (Microsoft v. Eolas) are two high profile examples.
Mailblocks sued two others before attacking Earthlink.
D'oh! I should have thought of Eolas. Not familiar with the the Earthlink case; will look up.
Please provide examples of software patents preventing costly litigation.
I think that part of the problem here is that there are *two* kinds of software: 1) the ridiculously easy kind that a computer person wouldn't even think of patenting, but that a businessman would jump on: i.e. Amazon's one-click patent. 2) Complex software, written to solve a particular problem: think those hundreds of IBM patents.
It seems to me that, when people dump on software patents, they are thinking of the first kind. But I think of them as the second kind: complex *machines* that happen to be built out of code rather than metal. So there is a fundamental disconnect right off the bat.
If the Patent Office was correctly doing its job, those first types would *never be allowed*, due to prior art; only the second type would get by. But that, in itself, is no reason to ban software patents. The fact that they *do* allow patents of the first type is an implementation problem at the Patent Office
So, to finally answer your question, let me refer then to the IBM patent trove. How many of those have ever been litigated -- successfully or unsuccesfully? I bet not many.
No, knowing that you will hold the patent on a piece of software increases your motivation to work on it.
Knowing that someone else will hold the patent on a piece of software greatly decreases your motivation to work on it.
The problem is, there's a reasonable chance that the software you are writing is patented or is going to be patented by someone else.
Even if you think the risk is small, it's still a risk, and risks are a disincentive.
Yes, it's true that "Knowing that someone else will hold the patent on a piece of software greatly decreases your motivation to work on it." But that's not the case with me, as I mentioned in my first post.
The problem is, there's a reasonable chance that the software you are writing is patented or is going to be patented by someone else.
Considering the obscure area of mathematics within which I toil, I consider that unlikely: theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
Even if you think the risk is small, it's still a risk, and risks are a disincentive.
Of course. But if I stopped working every time I ran into a little obstacle like "risk", I might as well do nothing at all. I'm all for risk, as long as it eventually brings its friend "reward". 8^D
The rationalization for patents is that they give an incentive to the inventor, and therefore cause more invention.
To me, that sounds suspiciously like "the ends justify the means".
The test of an idea is that it works. Has the US Patent system worked? Indubitably!!! Our innovation culture is the proof. I *will* grant that changes in the patent process in the last 30 years have muddied the water somewhat (I, for one, am somewhat leery of "business patents", because there is no 'material object', unlike all other kinds of patents), but that's no reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
In software, independently creating the same invention happens constantly, and the harm is not as easy to justify.
And it's far less clear that there is any benefit.
See my earlier note about the difference between the two types of software.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Reported in House)
TITLE IV--TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RELAY SERVICES
SEC. 401. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
(a) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
`SEC. 225. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
`(a) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section--
`(1) COMMON CARRIER OR CARRIER- The term `common carrier' or `carrier' includes any common carrier engaged in interstate communication by wire or radio as defined in section 3(h), any common carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio, and any common carrier engaged in both interstate and intrastate communication, notwithstanding sections 2(b) and 221(b).
`(2) TDD- The term `TDD' means a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf, which is a machine that employs graphic communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio communication system.
`(3) TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICES- The term `telecommunications relay services' means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.
Let me repeat the crucial part here:
any common carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio
And what about this:
Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.
How does that *not* fit the definition of the Internet?
Software patents do not promote science and the useful arts.
Since software *is* a useful art, that sentence makes no sense.
Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.
Unsupportable. Much more software, in fact, *has* been written since software became patentable -- although not all of it was patented.
Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. Please give examples of software deveolpers which have been harmed by software patents.
Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.
Completely ridiculous. It is exactly the other way around -- knowing that my software *will* be patented makes me *more* motivated to work on it. However, I don't work for a big corporation -- I'm an independent.
What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?
Knowing that my intellectual fruit is worth something in the open market and that it *is* protected better than by copyright. Furthermore, *all* software patents expire eventually, and then the software is in the public domain.
Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.
Absurd. Poster gives no rational reasons in this post for that.
-- Should you question authority?
Ummmmmmm -- shouldn't *you*? All of your so-called arguments here have been made better by other people. Why, precisely, *are* you so dead set against software patents?
...but fortunately, selfless, right-thinking men have been working hard to protect us from ourselves.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Flash mobs! Anarchist newspapers! Incitement to riot! Religious extremists!
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Home-grown terrorists!
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
You know, these military bases are soooo darned expensive. Putting soldiers into the community will both cut down on housing costs *and* keep the community safer from terrorism!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sneak and peek! Echelon! Carnivore! Keystroke loggers! Infared searches of houses from helicopters!
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have not been found guilty in a state court! Mass arrests at political events! Civil forfeiture laws for alleged drug-selling criminals!
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
No attorney/client privileges for those accused of terrorism! Special terrorism courts, with secret judges, classified evidence and shadowy accusers! Indefinite detention without charges for "enemy combatants"! "Protective" detention for alleged terrorism witnesses!
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Special bench trials for situations where "intelligence methods and sources might be compromised"! Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have been found NOT guilty in a state court!
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The death "penalty"! The federal expansion of the death "penalty" to 53 new federal crimes in 1996!
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of
What *other* political parties think
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Libertarians: Start your own business. *Create* your own job, instead of waiting for someone else to do it.
Greens: Organize your neighbors and start sustainable cooperatives, especially around "life necessities" (food, shelter, health care, education). Undercut the corporate monopolies.
These are both viable alternatives. However, they both require determination, optimism, personal responsibility and hard work; therefore, they won't be popular with people who were brought up in an educational system that encouraged them to be passive workers, rather than active owners.
It's beyond me why any software patent exists unless it is a truly outstanding piece of work (i.e. cryptography algorithms, non-obvious sorting algorithms, etc).
And that's precisely *why* we need software patents. Not all algorithms have been discovered. The primary reason people are against software patents is that they believe that *all* software patents are merely algorithms which are "obvious to experts in the field". That's simply not true.
Most Congressional seats are considered "safe", because one party or the other will almost always win (absent a scandal), because of the way the districts are drawn. Because they are drawn by partisan forces (i.e. whomever controls the legislature in the Census year), they have arrived at this position by 'positive feedback'; that is, those who benefit from them make them and those who make them benefit from them.
One way to combat this is, of course, by negative feedback: let the party who does *not* control the legislature control the redistricting. One problem leaps to mind: to what degree is there a Constitutional limit on *whom* may do redistricting?
"Take the redistricting process out of the hands of the incumbents and their parties by either instituting clear criteria that mapmakers must follow or by establishing independent, nonpartisan commissions. Iowa and Arizona use such approaches."
I call for "open source" approaches to redistricting. For example, truly fair redistricting would take into account *only* population and *not* perceived party bias of the locality. This element alone would make more districts fair by including individuals of all political persuasions.
Perhaps physics can help us. If each individual is considered a point mass, it should be possible to divide up each state so that *the sum of the net distances of each point mass from the center of the mass of each district* is at a minimum. If there are 2 possible maps which meet this criterion, impose the additional requirement that *the sum of all boundries of all districts in a state shall also be at a minimum* as well (this encourages more "rounded" districts).
"Good science fiction" is about what does it mean to be human.
Hear, hear!!! Somebody mod this parent up insightful!
Re:There's a reason for two parties -
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
The two-party system, for all its flaws, is demonstrably superior to any other system of representative government yet devised.
Except -- of course -- for *any other system of representative democracy* (like, say, proportional representation systems in Europe, or the original democracy in Greece). The two-party stranglehold on power is why people don't bother to vote *at all*. Since the Republicans represent the billionaires and the Democrats represent the millionaires, very few voters believe that *either* party represents *their* best interests.
If the two party system was "demonstrably superior" to any other system, we'd already have universal health care (they have it in Europe), a fairer political funding mechanism (like, say, public financing of elections) and a lot smaller gap between the remuneration of CEOs and workers. But we don't. So it isn't.
It is illegal to offer anything in exchange for voting. Not just, illegal to offer anything for voting *a certain way*; it is illegal to offer any incentive to vote *at all*. That's why it "hasn't been done before".
Thanks for trying though.
Factoring is another NP problem -- NO!
on
The End of Encryption?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Factoring is another NP problem.
I'm surprised that Simson made this elementary mistake.
Factoring has *not* been proved to belong to either P or NP. It's an "open problem".
Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states?
Diebold's core business is ATMs!!! So, no, it *wouldn't* be that hard for them to design a machine that spits out a receipt. Of course, then the election couldn't be stolen quite as easily...and isn't that the point of creating touchscreen voting without a paper trail???
The catalysts, which are key to the process, orchestrate a series of chemical maneuvers that ultimately result in an increased hydrogen yield. First, one of the catalysts (the nickel-based unit) absorbs the oxygen from the air and this interaction heats up the reactor bed of the device. Simultaneously, in the presence of heat, another catalyst (a carbon-based adsorbent) releases any carbon dioxide previously trapped in the device.
I wonder if they have tried this one. It's designed to supress methane production and increase hydrogen production.
From the article: ...a Raneynickel catalyst, named after Murray Raney, who first patented the alloy in 1927.
Raney-nickel is a porous catalyst made of about 90 percent nickel (Ni) and 10 percent aluminum (Al). While Raney-nickel proved somewhat effective at separating hydrogen from biomass-derived molecules, the researchers improved the material's effectiveness by adding more tin (Sn), which stops the production of methane and instead generates more hydrogen. Relative to other catalysts, the Raney-NiSn can perform for long time periods (at least 48 hours) and at lower temperatures (roughly 225 degrees Celsius).
Systematic reuse can yield economies of both scale and scope. These two effects are well known in other industries. While both reduce time and cost, and improve product quality, by producing multiple products collectively, rather than individually, they differ in the way they produce these benefits.
The author makes the point that *only* under these specific circumstances will this idea of "software factories" work. He addresses the "craft question" ["But programming is a craft, not a science!"] and concedes that under those circumstances, software factories will *not* work.
Only in a high-reusability environment (like, natch, Microcruft) will this concept work.
Finding something that uses a database back-end that we can interface other things with would be ideal. I'm OSS agnostic on this one - we just want the most useful and practical solution. What software would you recommend?
...my employer would rather find a vendor and a support channel.
So...you're *not* really OSS agnostic after all, are you? IMHO, the poster has given you the solution. I suggest that you show up one Saturday and implement the MySQL/PHP solution. Make sure to write a user manual too, to deal with the "truckhit scenario." When your employer realizes that your fait accompli is exactly what he/she is looking for, I think he/she will come around pretty darn quickly -- especially since it *is* free! If your employer is so PHBish to *turn down* a *working solution*, I'd suggest that you update your resume. Be proactive -- it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
I just read about the hippocampal prosthesis that has been developed and is about to be tested, and it made me wonder how close we now are to the scenario portrayed in the movie, The Matrix, where the characters are able to download new skills in the blink of an eye. From what I read, this prosthesis takes incoming signals from numerous brain regions and outputs data that has been parsed in a way that allows it to be encoded into long term memory. It occurs to me that if we are able to do this, we should also be able to record these outputs and reproduce them in others, thus transferring memories without the lived experiences...
Of course, the parsing will be the tricky part. But once we have the hippocampal prosthesis, what's to stop us from creating other brain prostheses (other than the fact that implanting things into our brain currently constitutes major surgery)? For example, an amygdala prosthesis could help people with borderline personality disorder, since recent research seems to indicate that it is a *mis-wired* amygdala (due possibly to inadequate parenting and childhood psychological trauma) that causes the sudden rages so characteristic of this largely untreatable syndrome.
Or imagine the Anti-aphasia bridge. You'd never be stuck searching for the right word ever again. How about the enhanced cochlea? Super-hearing! And haven't you always wanted to see into the ultraviolet? No problem with the Magnetic Resonance Optical Overlay Device.
And, besides, I'm just waiting for this one:
In the future, there will be a machine which will produce a religious experience in the user.
--David Byrne, In The Future, Music from the Knee Plays
It may be here sooner than we may think, since we know now that the parietal lobes are implicated in these experiences.
Under the plans, doctors would immunise children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection.
...being born.
Childhood immunisation would provide adults with protection from the euphoria...
Gee, I wonder what happens when a child grows up and realizes that the fact that he can't feel any euphoria is directly connected to something the government forced on him without his consent or knowledge.
Now multiply by ten million. Somehow, I don't think "But our party wasn't in power at the time!" will really be an adequate excuse. Britian at least has strong gun laws, but I don't expect this little "scheme" to stay on that side of the pond. If you think that the current "cutting" epidemic [a syndrome where depressed adolescents surreptitiously slice their skin in order to "feel something"] is bad, just wait until America has to deal with the 'britting' epidemic: kids running amok down city streets spraying everything in their path with AK-47's, screaming "Can you feel me now?!!!"
The fact is, life without the normal emotions -- and euphoria is indeed a normal emotion -- is not worth living. Are the authors of this "radical scheme" ready for the wave of early adolescent suicides/homicides that this little experiment of theirs will unleash in about a decade? And I don't expect that hundreds or thousands of their grieving/pissed-off parents will be inclined to "listen to reason" at that point either.
Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they're abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud.
Librarians are professionals. Mandating the dumping upon them of CDs of the RIAA's choice is just insulting; the judge should have made this *subject to the approval of the librarians*.
I suggest to the librarians that they keep the CDs which -- in their *professional* opinion -- are worth keeping, and *send the rest back* (at the RIAA's expense, of course). Repeat until enough CDs have been received that fit the *librarians'* criterion for inclusion in the collection.
The RIAA of all "people" should *not* be allowed to decide what the libraries get -- especially since they *lost* the case.
Although the Antarctic lake is thought to be full of oxygen, the Icelandic water contains surprisingly little of the gas.
It also contains few of the sulphurous salts normally found in volcanic lakes. "But the bacteria have the nutrients they need to sustain an ecosystem," says Lanoil. The microbes gather the carbon they require by absorbing carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. They ultimately get their energy from chemicals released during geothermal activity, rather than by absorbing light from the Sun.
Check out Dark Life, which goes into much detail about extremophilic life, both here and on Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics is considered a matter of fact, something which cannot be patented.
OK, you *are* missing something. Mathematics is *not* a "matter of fact", it is an abstract (and thus arbitrary) method of conceptualizing objects and relations: a conceptual tool, if you will. An algorithm is an idea that can be expressed mathematically, but it is still an *idea* and cannot be patented. However, a *physical process* which *implements* an algorithm is material; as long as it is "non-obvious" and "useful", it *CAN* be patented. You have confused ideas and objects here.
I see that you are still baffled -- let me explain. Take the cotton gin, patented by Eli Whitney: a rotating wheel which strips the seeds from cotton. Such a device can be expressed in mathematical terms, but that is not an invention. The algorithm for cleaning cotton can be expressed in words, but that is not an invention. The cotton gin itself -- a useful device for cleaning cotton -- can be constructed and used; at the time that it was patented, it was "novel" and "non-obvious to an expert in the field", so it met the test for patentability.
OK, say I develop an algorithm for, say, factoring numbers faster than current methods. I can express it mathematically -- not patentable. I can write down a verbal algorithm for doing it -- also not patentable. But now say I implement it as a software program, where it is used to factor numbers. Useful? Yes. Novel? Yes. Non-obvious to an expert in the field? Yes. Thus: patentable.
The fact that it is an implementation of *an* algorithm is irrelevant: all patented inventions *are*, at some level, because every invention implements a sequential process of some kind, and an algorithm is just a listing of a sequential process.
[joke]Well, that would make all current members of Congress ineligible.[/joke]
Seriously, though, since 1/3 of all African-American men are in prison, on probation, or on parole, and African-Americans make up about 12% of the population, African-Americans would only have 5/6s of their population eligible to serve. [Assumption: most African-American women are not in this 1/3 group.] While this is somewhat better than the original Constitution, where they were only counted as 3/5s of a person, it is still disproportionate, and hence unfair. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "felons", but I would be willing to guess that most Americans believe that someone who has been imprisoned on a felony charge should *never again* be allowed to vote.
I don't agree, however, and I would argue that the 15th Amendment:
[Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ]
makes it clear that the act of barring ex-felons from voting is, on its face, UNconstitutional.
"Hotter summers, colder winters, and more intense hurricanes. But we can't rule out a sudden (say, within a century) plunge into a little ice age, if the ice caps at the poles melt, causing the earth to lose too much albedo from the loss of the reflective ice caps. Also, glacial runoff from Greenland could stop the warming North Atlantic current and make northern Europe uninhabitable, like in the last big ice age, which ended 11,000 years ago."
So far he's been right. Not that that's a good thing.
Please give examples of software developers which have been harmed by software patents.
Earthlink (Mailblocks v. Earthlink), and Microsoft (Microsoft v. Eolas) are two high profile examples. Mailblocks sued two others before attacking Earthlink.
D'oh! I should have thought of Eolas. Not familiar with the the Earthlink case; will look up.
Please provide examples of software patents preventing costly litigation.
I think that part of the problem here is that there are *two* kinds of software: 1) the ridiculously easy kind that a computer person wouldn't even think of patenting, but that a businessman would jump on: i.e. Amazon's one-click patent. 2) Complex software, written to solve a particular problem: think those hundreds of IBM patents.
It seems to me that, when people dump on software patents, they are thinking of the first kind. But I think of them as the second kind: complex *machines* that happen to be built out of code rather than metal. So there is a fundamental disconnect right off the bat.
If the Patent Office was correctly doing its job, those first types would *never be allowed*, due to prior art; only the second type would get by. But that, in itself, is no reason to ban software patents. The fact that they *do* allow patents of the first type is an implementation problem at the Patent Office
So, to finally answer your question, let me refer then to the IBM patent trove. How many of those have ever been litigated -- successfully or unsuccesfully? I bet not many.
No, knowing that you will hold the patent on a piece of software increases your motivation to work on it. Knowing that someone else will hold the patent on a piece of software greatly decreases your motivation to work on it. The problem is, there's a reasonable chance that the software you are writing is patented or is going to be patented by someone else. Even if you think the risk is small, it's still a risk, and risks are a disincentive.
Yes, it's true that "Knowing that someone else will hold the patent on a piece of software greatly decreases your motivation to work on it." But that's not the case with me, as I mentioned in my first post.
The problem is, there's a reasonable chance that the software you are writing is patented or is going to be patented by someone else.
Considering the obscure area of mathematics within which I toil, I consider that unlikely: theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
Even if you think the risk is small, it's still a risk, and risks are a disincentive.
Of course. But if I stopped working every time I ran into a little obstacle like "risk", I might as well do nothing at all. I'm all for risk, as long as it eventually brings its friend "reward". 8^D
The rationalization for patents is that they give an incentive to the inventor, and therefore cause more invention. To me, that sounds suspiciously like "the ends justify the means".
The test of an idea is that it works. Has the US Patent system worked? Indubitably!!! Our innovation culture is the proof. I *will* grant that changes in the patent process in the last 30 years have muddied the water somewhat (I, for one, am somewhat leery of "business patents", because there is no 'material object', unlike all other kinds of patents), but that's no reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
In software, independently creating the same invention happens constantly, and the harm is not as easy to justify. And it's far less clear that there is any benefit.
See my earlier note about the difference between the two types of software.
Again, thank you for your reply.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Reported in House)
TITLE IV--TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RELAY SERVICES
SEC. 401. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
(a) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
`SEC. 225. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
`(a) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section--
`(1) COMMON CARRIER OR CARRIER- The term `common carrier' or `carrier' includes any common carrier engaged in interstate communication by wire or radio as defined in section 3(h), any common carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio, and any common carrier engaged in both interstate and intrastate communication, notwithstanding sections 2(b) and 221(b).
`(2) TDD- The term `TDD' means a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf, which is a machine that employs graphic communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio communication system.
`(3) TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICES- The term `telecommunications relay services' means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.
Let me repeat the crucial part here:
any common carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio
And what about this:
Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.
How does that *not* fit the definition of the Internet?
Since software *is* a useful art, that sentence makes no sense.
Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.
Unsupportable. Much more software, in fact, *has* been written since software became patentable -- although not all of it was patented.
Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. Please give examples of software deveolpers which have been harmed by software patents.
Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.
Completely ridiculous. It is exactly the other way around -- knowing that my software *will* be patented makes me *more* motivated to work on it. However, I don't work for a big corporation -- I'm an independent.
What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?
Knowing that my intellectual fruit is worth something in the open market and that it *is* protected better than by copyright. Furthermore, *all* software patents expire eventually, and then the software is in the public domain.
Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.
Absurd. Poster gives no rational reasons in this post for that.
-- Should you question authority?
Ummmmmmm -- shouldn't *you*? All of your so-called arguments here have been made better by other people. Why, precisely, *are* you so dead set against software patents?
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Flash mobs! Anarchist newspapers! Incitement to riot! Religious extremists!
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Home-grown terrorists!
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
You know, these military bases are soooo darned expensive. Putting soldiers into the community will both cut down on housing costs *and* keep the community safer from terrorism!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sneak and peek! Echelon! Carnivore! Keystroke loggers! Infared searches of houses from helicopters!
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have not been found guilty in a state court! Mass arrests at political events! Civil forfeiture laws for alleged drug-selling criminals!
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
No attorney/client privileges for those accused of terrorism! Special terrorism courts, with secret judges, classified evidence and shadowy accusers! Indefinite detention without charges for "enemy combatants"! "Protective" detention for alleged terrorism witnesses!
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Special bench trials for situations where "intelligence methods and sources might be compromised"! Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have been found NOT guilty in a state court!
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The death "penalty"! The federal expansion of the death "penalty" to 53 new federal crimes in 1996!
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of
Greens: Organize your neighbors and start sustainable cooperatives, especially around "life necessities" (food, shelter, health care, education). Undercut the corporate monopolies.
These are both viable alternatives. However, they both require determination, optimism, personal responsibility and hard work; therefore, they won't be popular with people who were brought up in an educational system that encouraged them to be passive workers, rather than active owners.
It's already been done.
And that's precisely *why* we need software patents. Not all algorithms have been discovered. The primary reason people are against software patents is that they believe that *all* software patents are merely algorithms which are "obvious to experts in the field". That's simply not true.
One way to combat this is, of course, by negative feedback: let the party who does *not* control the legislature control the redistricting. One problem leaps to mind: to what degree is there a Constitutional limit on *whom* may do redistricting?
This site: www.fairvote.org/redistricting lays out some possiblities. Taking a cue from their 2nd point:
"Take the redistricting process out of the hands of the incumbents and their parties by either instituting clear criteria that mapmakers must follow or by establishing independent, nonpartisan commissions. Iowa and Arizona use such approaches."
I call for "open source" approaches to redistricting. For example, truly fair redistricting would take into account *only* population and *not* perceived party bias of the locality. This element alone would make more districts fair by including individuals of all political persuasions.
Perhaps physics can help us. If each individual is considered a point mass, it should be possible to divide up each state so that *the sum of the net distances of each point mass from the center of the mass of each district* is at a minimum. If there are 2 possible maps which meet this criterion, impose the additional requirement that *the sum of all boundries of all districts in a state shall also be at a minimum* as well (this encourages more "rounded" districts).
Hear, hear!!! Somebody mod this parent up insightful!
Except -- of course -- for *any other system of representative democracy* (like, say, proportional representation systems in Europe, or the original democracy in Greece). The two-party stranglehold on power is why people don't bother to vote *at all*. Since the Republicans represent the billionaires and the Democrats represent the millionaires, very few voters believe that *either* party represents *their* best interests.
If the two party system was "demonstrably superior" to any other system, we'd already have universal health care (they have it in Europe), a fairer political funding mechanism (like, say, public financing of elections) and a lot smaller gap between the remuneration of CEOs and workers. But we don't. So it isn't.
Thanks for trying though.
I'm surprised that Simson made this elementary mistake.
Factoring has *not* been proved to belong to either P or NP. It's an "open problem".
Diebold's core business is ATMs!!! So, no, it *wouldn't* be that hard for them to design a machine that spits out a receipt. Of course, then the election couldn't be stolen quite as easily...and isn't that the point of creating touchscreen voting without a paper trail???
I wonder if they have tried this one. It's designed to supress methane production and increase hydrogen production.
From the article:
...a Raneynickel catalyst, named after Murray Raney, who first patented the alloy in 1927.
Raney-nickel is a porous catalyst made of about 90 percent nickel (Ni) and 10 percent aluminum (Al). While Raney-nickel proved somewhat effective at separating hydrogen from biomass-derived molecules, the researchers improved the material's effectiveness by adding more tin (Sn), which stops the production of methane and instead generates more hydrogen. Relative to other catalysts, the Raney-NiSn can perform for long time periods (at least 48 hours) and at lower temperatures (roughly 225 degrees Celsius).
The author makes the point that *only* under these specific circumstances will this idea of "software factories" work. He addresses the "craft question" ["But programming is a craft, not a science!"] and concedes that under those circumstances, software factories will *not* work.
Only in a high-reusability environment (like, natch, Microcruft) will this concept work.
Lack of due diligence. Not to mention giving the publisher a *huge* PR black eye.
So...you're *not* really OSS agnostic after all, are you? IMHO, the poster has given you the solution. I suggest that you show up one Saturday and implement the MySQL/PHP solution. Make sure to write a user manual too, to deal with the "truckhit scenario." When your employer realizes that your fait accompli is exactly what he/she is looking for, I think he/she will come around pretty darn quickly -- especially since it *is* free! If your employer is so PHBish to *turn down* a *working solution*, I'd suggest that you update your resume. Be proactive -- it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Of course, the parsing will be the tricky part. But once we have the hippocampal prosthesis, what's to stop us from creating other brain prostheses (other than the fact that implanting things into our brain currently constitutes major surgery)? For example, an amygdala prosthesis could help people with borderline personality disorder, since recent research seems to indicate that it is a *mis-wired* amygdala (due possibly to inadequate parenting and childhood psychological trauma) that causes the sudden rages so characteristic of this largely untreatable syndrome.
Or imagine the Anti-aphasia bridge. You'd never be stuck searching for the right word ever again. How about the enhanced cochlea? Super-hearing! And haven't you always wanted to see into the ultraviolet? No problem with the Magnetic Resonance Optical Overlay Device.
And, besides, I'm just waiting for this one:
It may be here sooner than we may think, since we know now that the parietal lobes are implicated in these experiences.
Childhood immunisation would provide adults with protection from the euphoria...
Gee, I wonder what happens when a child grows up and realizes that the fact that he can't feel any euphoria is directly connected to something the government forced on him without his consent or knowledge.
Now multiply by ten million. Somehow, I don't think "But our party wasn't in power at the time!" will really be an adequate excuse. Britian at least has strong gun laws, but I don't expect this little "scheme" to stay on that side of the pond. If you think that the current "cutting" epidemic [a syndrome where depressed adolescents surreptitiously slice their skin in order to "feel something"] is bad, just wait until America has to deal with the 'britting' epidemic: kids running amok down city streets spraying everything in their path with AK-47's, screaming "Can you feel me now?!!!"
The fact is, life without the normal emotions -- and euphoria is indeed a normal emotion -- is not worth living. Are the authors of this "radical scheme" ready for the wave of early adolescent suicides/homicides that this little experiment of theirs will unleash in about a decade? And I don't expect that hundreds or thousands of their grieving/pissed-off parents will be inclined to "listen to reason" at that point either.
Librarians are professionals. Mandating the dumping upon them of CDs of the RIAA's choice is just insulting; the judge should have made this *subject to the approval of the librarians*.
I suggest to the librarians that they keep the CDs which -- in their *professional* opinion -- are worth keeping, and *send the rest back* (at the RIAA's expense, of course). Repeat until enough CDs have been received that fit the *librarians'* criterion for inclusion in the collection.
The RIAA of all "people" should *not* be allowed to decide what the libraries get -- especially since they *lost* the case.
Check out Dark Life, which goes into much detail about extremophilic life, both here and on Mars.