Any engineer who was faced with the problem would have solved it, just because somebody was the first to solve a problem in a particular way shouldn't prevent someone else from solving the problem and arriving at the same answer.
No, many engineers have been confronted with the same problems and not solved it. It takes skill to solve the problem, and hence the patent.
Which is why patents have to be extremely specific about what they do. And if they were the first to come up with something they did, why is it wrong for them to capitalize on their idea?
If I find a beautiful island with full of pretty chicks, there is no reason I should share it with someone or let someone else use it down the line. Sure, it would be nice of me if I did - but there is NO obligation whatsoever.
Your using your moral and ethical standards to deem why patents are unnecessary - and by doing so, you're deeming that others should also oblige by them. You've a choice - not to use stuff that has been patented and to find work arounds, as well as not to patent your stuff.
That however does not give you the right to stop others from patenting their stuff.
No I'm not, copyright is suitable for protecting literature, music, films and software. Patents are suitable for protecting physical inventions.
Copyright only protects the final expression. Never the idea behind the expression. I can patent a musical method, too, if I can prove it has a utility value and it is unique. Same for things like films and many other things.
Patents are for HOW you arrived at the expression - not necessarily physical in nature. It could be the idea behind a means of compression, a cryptographic method and what not. I may even have a unique idea for a cryogenic engine, but I may not have the resources to build one. And my cryogenic engine maybe a part of something much larger, and it would only be an idea and not something physical.
Nope. In practice, if I patent some software, and then Microsoft rips me off. I have the following options...
First of all, you cannot patent a software. Only the idea behind the software.
So, if you've worded your patent carefully enough, and credited all prior art work, then your patent is infallible.
And don't be so sure that Microsoft can always bully you -- if your patent is clear enough, the judge will throw Microsoft's case out of the window.
You can not patent mathematics.
Like I've mentioned elsewhere, yes, you can - if the mathematical idea is unique and there is no prior art - AND if there is an application/utility value.
Furthermore, you can not say that the spirit of patents in general is a good idea. In every field where you want to implement patents, you must investigate, independantly, whether they do more harm than good.
If someone came up with a unique idea that is good and new, why should they not capitalize on it? And it is almost impossible for someone to scry and _predict_ whether patents would be good or bad in each field - it would be very highly relative.
Are patents in drugs wrong? Probably, but companies invest billions of dollars investigating stuff in R&D, that the patents are the only things that protect them. What's wrong with that?
Because it does not have a utility. If you came up with something unique and mathematical with no prior art and with a utility value, you'd be allowed to patent it.
Copyright helps me, having to do a patent search for every 15 lines of code helps nobody!
What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright is for the protection of the expression, patent is for the idea behind the expression.
And those 15 line patents are exactly what I was talking about when I meant misuse of patents.
For instance, my advisor has a patent on 3D compression using what is called a Topological Surgery approach, which provided the foundation of the current MPEG-4 standard for 3D compression. It's a method for achieving a goal, and am fairly certain that he's one of the VERY few people who could have come up with something like that.
That's an idea behind achieving an expression, and he rightfully holds the patent to it.
The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!
BZZT! A lot of stuff that folks come up with involves a lot of time and effort. Remember that for patents you need to have a valid UTILITY value. They most certainly would let you patent a mathematical method IF you can provide a utility value. Same for the idea behind a software.
It is for the same reason that you cannot patent a literary work but copyright the same. Am sure if you came up with a literary idea that has utility value, you'd be granted a patent for it.
Well, it's not enough if you just paid people now, is it?:-)
The idea behind patents is -
Help you capitalize on your idea
Give you a lead over others so that you are the only one who can legally use it for a while
Put the idea for all others to see and extend on
The idea is not to STOP others, but give you a lead over others since you invented it in the first place. Remember, that is not a bad idea in itself because if you are a 16 year old kid in a basement who comes up with your own idea, it can genuinely protect you. On the other hand, it is being misused by folks to patent obvious things and STOP others.
Blame the patent office for granting those patents, but not the idea behind patents in general.
If you are a lone programmer (or a small independent group) who comes up with something that you need to make money out of, patents genuinely help you.
Just as how if you are a lone inventor who comes up with something new and innovative.
You see, the spirit behind patents is to give you complete control of your idea, while at the same time letting others know of your idea so that they can further it independently, but you have complete control over *your* idea for a while and a time-frame during which you can capitalize on that innovation.
However, corporations have skewed that whole thing completely - that does not mean the spirit of software patents is wrong. Folks are misusing it, the idea is still to give you a legal way of capitalizing on your idea.
There is nothing wrong with patents per se, but rather the *reasons* why they are being called for.
The European computer patent measure seems to be aimed at stifling competition rather than encourage innovation - that is why it's not a good idea.
Unfortunate, the US patent system has the idea right but it's been misused into oblivion (with wonderful contributions from those granting patents, too) - but it was never created for the reasons that the European Computer Implemented Inventions Directive is being created for.
While the spirit of the argument is commendable, you should remember that the library probably *paid* someone to scan the pictures, someone to write the code and someone to implement the whole system. Probably a whole lot of someones, who need pay.
Not to mention the fact that they would need money for the infrastructure, systems and running costs. Now where would they get the money for something like that from?
Most libraries have just about enough money to keep the basic stuff running, let alone spend on something like this. So, unless they receive a fat grant for doing stuff like this, there isn't really much that they can do except charge for it.
Now, fair use would grant you permission to see the low-res versions, but they have every right to charge you for the high-res particularly since they invested money in bringing it to you in the first place.
While it may be unfortunate, I can see where they are coming from. Kinda inevitable, but on the bright side you atleast have something!:-)
Yeah, usually libraries have different ways of handling IP. Even state sponsored libraries have differences in the way they handle such material.
For instance, Georgia Tech's library is federally funded, but they do not allow everyone to access the digital copies of things such as journals and the like - only students, researchers & faculty.
This, despite the fact that the material can only be accessed from within the campus (or from outside if you have a GTech id, but then if you do have one you're part of the school anyway).
That brings to mind another question - are these images public domain or what? What about the way you use them?
If your phone is polyphonic and you have some kinda WAP enabled, it's a lot easier for you to just download the MIDIs of the songs you like. Those are easier to find and for the most part, work.
Why would anyone want to pay for these things?
Re:Why are the fictions reviews scifi only????
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 1
For the same reason that Slashdot does not talk about a lot of other stuff - topics that do not interest the general demography of the readers of nerd/geek population would attract far too few folks.
Re:Stephen Baxter rocks
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Can you mod you "confused, welcome to slashdot" ?;-)
Stephen Baxter rocks
on
Exultant
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
His Manifold series (Manifold Space, Time & Origin) are simply too good. I've not read the Destiny's Children series, but if it's anything like his other works, I can be sure it would be damn cool.
And anyone else notice that Wikipedia is awfully slow or down these days? I wonder why.
> No it's not, it's also the record of many > hundreds of years of culture...
That's true for almost every other language out there. Languages like Persian or Sanskrit are *much* older and have many thousands of years of culture.
*shrug*
Latin was once the de-facto language of science, then it was German. Now it is English and tomorrow it could be Chinese for all you know. Languages evolve and move on.
I'm not denying your statement that works in French deserve to be preserved -- merely that works in every other language should be accorded the same.
No other language is as widespread culturally and across the world as English is and there is a reason why Google is doing this for English. More importantly, French no longer moves the world. English does and that's a fact.
Languages do eventually die out and move on - not that am saying French is dying, but it's definitely on its way there.
I think you have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about.
Affordances have nothing to do with skills, it about how intuitive the product is to use - usability at a very intuitive level (you see a glass mug and you realize that the hold is for gripping the mug).
In fact, especially since it would be used for military applications (training or not), the affordance becomes even more important - because your reactions would be stifled by what is around you.
And by taking off big time, I was referring to how popular it would be among the folks using it. Not necessarily among the general public.
As much as I do not like Piquepaille's articles appearing ever so often, I cannot understand why you need to keep complaining about it. If you do not like them, just ignore them. As simple as that.
Atleast some of his articles are vaguely interesting and refer to something or the other you're probably unaware of. Don't like them? Don't read them. As simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
Any engineer who was faced with the problem would have solved it, just because somebody was the first to solve a problem in a particular way shouldn't prevent someone else from solving the problem and arriving at the same answer.
No, many engineers have been confronted with the same problems and not solved it. It takes skill to solve the problem, and hence the patent.
Which is why patents have to be extremely specific about what they do. And if they were the first to come up with something they did, why is it wrong for them to capitalize on their idea?
If I find a beautiful island with full of pretty chicks, there is no reason I should share it with someone or let someone else use it down the line. Sure, it would be nice of me if I did - but there is NO obligation whatsoever.
Your using your moral and ethical standards to deem why patents are unnecessary - and by doing so, you're deeming that others should also oblige by them. You've a choice - not to use stuff that has been patented and to find work arounds, as well as not to patent your stuff.
That however does not give you the right to stop others from patenting their stuff.
No I'm not, copyright is suitable for protecting literature, music, films and software. Patents are suitable for protecting physical inventions.
Copyright only protects the final expression. Never the idea behind the expression. I can patent a musical method, too, if I can prove it has a utility value and it is unique. Same for things like films and many other things.
Patents are for HOW you arrived at the expression - not necessarily physical in nature. It could be the idea behind a means of compression, a cryptographic method and what not. I may even have a unique idea for a cryogenic engine, but I may not have the resources to build one. And my cryogenic engine maybe a part of something much larger, and it would only be an idea and not something physical.
Nope. In practice, if I patent some software, and then Microsoft rips me off. I have the following options...
First of all, you cannot patent a software. Only the idea behind the software.
So, if you've worded your patent carefully enough, and credited all prior art work, then your patent is infallible.
And don't be so sure that Microsoft can always bully you -- if your patent is clear enough, the judge will throw Microsoft's case out of the window.
You can not patent mathematics.
Like I've mentioned elsewhere, yes, you can - if the mathematical idea is unique and there is no prior art - AND if there is an application/utility value.
Furthermore, you can not say that the spirit of patents in general is a good idea. In every field where you want to implement patents, you must investigate, independantly, whether they do more harm than good.
If someone came up with a unique idea that is good and new, why should they not capitalize on it? And it is almost impossible for someone to scry and _predict_ whether patents would be good or bad in each field - it would be very highly relative.
Are patents in drugs wrong? Probably, but companies invest billions of dollars investigating stuff in R&D, that the patents are the only things that protect them. What's wrong with that?
>and pure maths isn't patentable
Because it does not have a utility. If you came up with something unique and mathematical with no prior art and with a utility value, you'd be allowed to patent it.
Copyright helps me, having to do a patent search for every 15 lines of code helps nobody!
What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright is for the protection of the expression, patent is for the idea behind the expression.
And those 15 line patents are exactly what I was talking about when I meant misuse of patents.
For instance, my advisor has a patent on 3D compression using what is called a Topological Surgery approach, which provided the foundation of the current MPEG-4 standard for 3D compression. It's a method for achieving a goal, and am fairly certain that he's one of the VERY few people who could have come up with something like that.
That's an idea behind achieving an expression, and he rightfully holds the patent to it.
The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!
BZZT! A lot of stuff that folks come up with involves a lot of time and effort. Remember that for patents you need to have a valid UTILITY value. They most certainly would let you patent a mathematical method IF you can provide a utility value. Same for the idea behind a software.
It is for the same reason that you cannot patent a literary work but copyright the same. Am sure if you came up with a literary idea that has utility value, you'd be granted a patent for it.
I think you're confusing patents and copyrights.
The idea behind patents is -
Help you capitalize on your idea
Give you a lead over others so that you are the only one who can legally use it for a while
Put the idea for all others to see and extend on
The idea is not to STOP others, but give you a lead over others since you invented it in the first place. Remember, that is not a bad idea in itself because if you are a 16 year old kid in a basement who comes up with your own idea, it can genuinely protect you. On the other hand, it is being misused by folks to patent obvious things and STOP others.
Blame the patent office for granting those patents, but not the idea behind patents in general.
No, there is not.
If you are a lone programmer (or a small independent group) who comes up with something that you need to make money out of, patents genuinely help you.
Just as how if you are a lone inventor who comes up with something new and innovative.
You see, the spirit behind patents is to give you complete control of your idea, while at the same time letting others know of your idea so that they can further it independently, but you have complete control over *your* idea for a while and a time-frame during which you can capitalize on that innovation.
However, corporations have skewed that whole thing completely - that does not mean the spirit of software patents is wrong. Folks are misusing it, the idea is still to give you a legal way of capitalizing on your idea.
There is nothing wrong with patents per se, but rather the *reasons* why they are being called for.
The European computer patent measure seems to be aimed at stifling competition rather than encourage innovation - that is why it's not a good idea.
Unfortunate, the US patent system has the idea right but it's been misused into oblivion (with wonderful contributions from those granting patents, too) - but it was never created for the reasons that the European Computer Implemented Inventions Directive is being created for.
Damn unfortunate.
While the spirit of the argument is commendable, you should remember that the library probably *paid* someone to scan the pictures, someone to write the code and someone to implement the whole system. Probably a whole lot of someones, who need pay.
:-)
Not to mention the fact that they would need money for the infrastructure, systems and running costs. Now where would they get the money for something like that from?
Most libraries have just about enough money to keep the basic stuff running, let alone spend on something like this. So, unless they receive a fat grant for doing stuff like this, there isn't really much that they can do except charge for it.
Now, fair use would grant you permission to see the low-res versions, but they have every right to charge you for the high-res particularly since they invested money in bringing it to you in the first place.
While it may be unfortunate, I can see where they are coming from. Kinda inevitable, but on the bright side you atleast have something!
Yeah, usually libraries have different ways of handling IP. Even state sponsored libraries have differences in the way they handle such material.
For instance, Georgia Tech's library is federally funded, but they do not allow everyone to access the digital copies of things such as journals and the like - only students, researchers & faculty.
This, despite the fact that the material can only be accessed from within the campus (or from outside if you have a GTech id, but then if you do have one you're part of the school anyway).
That brings to mind another question - are these images public domain or what? What about the way you use them?
If your phone is polyphonic and you have some kinda WAP enabled, it's a lot easier for you to just download the MIDIs of the songs you like. Those are easier to find and for the most part, work.
Why would anyone want to pay for these things?
For the same reason that Slashdot does not talk about a lot of other stuff - topics that do not interest the general demography of the readers of nerd/geek population would attract far too few folks.
Can you mod you "confused, welcome to slashdot" ? ;-)
His Manifold series (Manifold Space, Time & Origin) are simply too good. I've not read the Destiny's Children series, but if it's anything like his other works, I can be sure it would be damn cool.
And anyone else notice that Wikipedia is awfully slow or down these days? I wonder why.
Am sure that if I were to be frozen and reawakened 32,000 years later I'd want to eat, screw and... yeah, that's about it.
Bah.
> 2/10 in implementation.
:-O
That high!?
> No it's not, it's also the record of many
> hundreds of years of culture...
That's true for almost every other language out there. Languages like Persian or Sanskrit are *much* older and have many thousands of years of culture.
*shrug*
Latin was once the de-facto language of science, then it was German. Now it is English and tomorrow it could be Chinese for all you know. Languages evolve and move on.
I'm not denying your statement that works in French deserve to be preserved -- merely that works in every other language should be accorded the same.
No other language is as widespread culturally and across the world as English is and there is a reason why Google is doing this for English. More importantly, French no longer moves the world. English does and that's a fact.
Languages do eventually die out and move on - not that am saying French is dying, but it's definitely on its way there.
Are you implying that literature in other languages aren't? :-)
French is just a language, and the stiff-upper-lip attitude by folks like this is one of the reasons it's popularity is decreasing.
Well, that's what real women are for, mate =)
Maybe in a few years we'd be able to choose from 3 different types of spelling : 1. Good 2. Bad 3. Slashdot ;)
You owe me a new keyboard...not to mention a cup of coffee :-)
Affordances and Metaphors
I think you have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about.
Affordances have nothing to do with skills, it about how intuitive the product is to use - usability at a very intuitive level (you see a glass mug and you realize that the hold is for gripping the mug).
In fact, especially since it would be used for military applications (training or not), the affordance becomes even more important - because your reactions would be stifled by what is around you.
And by taking off big time, I was referring to how popular it would be among the folks using it. Not necessarily among the general public.
That's the term used to refer to such technologies.
Look up on Google.
Your brain comes with one.
As much as I do not like Piquepaille's articles appearing ever so often, I cannot understand why you need to keep complaining about it. If you do not like them, just ignore them. As simple as that.
Atleast some of his articles are vaguely interesting and refer to something or the other you're probably unaware of. Don't like them? Don't read them. As simple as that.
Yup! :-)
Which is what I was pointing out -- he started out with that design and moved on to the Eye-tap design that he has now.
Using helmets now is almost going backwards.