Let's assume the argument in the original article is correct. There is no solution; it's just a stage and function of technical advance. With the 3D printing revolution, it will start happing with stuff.
It's gotten to the point where not only are patents being sought and awarded even where ideas are obvious to a person skilled in the discipline; patents are being sought and awared even when they are obvious to a "man on the street" who spends more than three seconds thinking about a problem.
Two completely unrelated observations:
1) U.S. policies with regard to individual states are weird and can be difficult for businesses. I appreciate the "laboratories of democracy" concept, but it's difficult when state borders are totally permeable to some things but make other things difficult (almost at random, it sometimes seems).
2) I lived in a state where Amazon collected no taxes and then moved to state where they do. It has had zero influence on my decision to purchase or not purchase anything from Amazon. I think the bean counters at Amazon may be overthinking this thing.
-Neil
A friend of mine and I invented the MP3 player decades before the first one was ever produced. We thought: wouldn't it be cool to have a pocket-sized, totally electronic device which could store and play our favorite songs? We even made a modelling clay mockup that was more realistic and descriptive than most patent diagrams. To bad we didn't contact the patent office...
On a brighter note: I don't think the idea is totally bad; providing a context for a work of literature can make it more interesting and appealing, and can make first contact with it more rewarding. However, having been a victim of some experimental "new media" education back in the olden days, I can confirm that such things need to be carefully crafted in order to keep the experience from disolving into easily forgotten glitz.
As someone who has done considerable work in the medical insurance software industry, I see two sides to this issue. First, some businesses are woefully unprepared for the changes, which really can be complex. On the flip side, part of this is because -- like school homework on a weekend -- they tend to put off until later anything that can be put off. So to the extent the extra time is used wisely, I think it's a good idea. I'm willing to bet, unfortunately, that a lot of businesses will just use the extra time to procrastinate, and will be in the same position a year from now.
I used to be mostly a C++ programmer (and a C programmer before that). This summer I want to dust-off those skills and also bring my C++ knowledge up to C++11 standard.
I hope to do proof-of-concept web interface for a Scala app I maintain, using Play! and Akka. This will hopefully be used to depliy the actual product by autumn.
Also, I'll be learning some jQueryMobile and other mobile odds and ends and some more about the non-canvas parts of HTML5 (I've already done a lot of canvas work).
And, if I'm feeling brave, I'll try to talk a.NET client into using F# for a new project instead of C#.
Seems well-intentioned, but misguided. The problem with software patents is not that they do not have physical analogs. The problem with software patents is that: 1) nearly all of them are immediately obvious to anyone with reasonable software skills and probably get independently re-invented dozens of times a year, and 2) the nature of algorithms and software design means that any given software patent tends to cover much more than what would normally be considered a single invention (e.g. like "inventing" the idea of leverage or momentum). This is exacerbated by the fact that the value of a software patent in a war chest can greatly exceed any reasonable need to re-coup the investment in the actual invention.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's assume the argument in the original article is correct. There is no solution; it's just a stage and function of technical advance. With the 3D printing revolution, it will start happing with stuff.
I think we've getting to: 2013+: "...!"
It's gotten to the point where not only are patents being sought and awarded even where ideas are obvious to a person skilled in the discipline; patents are being sought and awared even when they are obvious to a "man on the street" who spends more than three seconds thinking about a problem.
It's the old, old story: the suits take over and the innovation moves on to the next garage.
Two completely unrelated observations: 1) U.S. policies with regard to individual states are weird and can be difficult for businesses. I appreciate the "laboratories of democracy" concept, but it's difficult when state borders are totally permeable to some things but make other things difficult (almost at random, it sometimes seems). 2) I lived in a state where Amazon collected no taxes and then moved to state where they do. It has had zero influence on my decision to purchase or not purchase anything from Amazon. I think the bean counters at Amazon may be overthinking this thing. -Neil
A friend of mine and I invented the MP3 player decades before the first one was ever produced. We thought: wouldn't it be cool to have a pocket-sized, totally electronic device which could store and play our favorite songs? We even made a modelling clay mockup that was more realistic and descriptive than most patent diagrams. To bad we didn't contact the patent office... On a brighter note: I don't think the idea is totally bad; providing a context for a work of literature can make it more interesting and appealing, and can make first contact with it more rewarding. However, having been a victim of some experimental "new media" education back in the olden days, I can confirm that such things need to be carefully crafted in order to keep the experience from disolving into easily forgotten glitz.
As someone who has done considerable work in the medical insurance software industry, I see two sides to this issue. First, some businesses are woefully unprepared for the changes, which really can be complex. On the flip side, part of this is because -- like school homework on a weekend -- they tend to put off until later anything that can be put off. So to the extent the extra time is used wisely, I think it's a good idea. I'm willing to bet, unfortunately, that a lot of businesses will just use the extra time to procrastinate, and will be in the same position a year from now.
There was a DX 10?
I used to be mostly a C++ programmer (and a C programmer before that). This summer I want to dust-off those skills and also bring my C++ knowledge up to C++11 standard. I hope to do proof-of-concept web interface for a Scala app I maintain, using Play! and Akka. This will hopefully be used to depliy the actual product by autumn. Also, I'll be learning some jQueryMobile and other mobile odds and ends and some more about the non-canvas parts of HTML5 (I've already done a lot of canvas work). And, if I'm feeling brave, I'll try to talk a .NET client into using F# for a new project instead of C#.
Seems well-intentioned, but misguided. The problem with software patents is not that they do not have physical analogs. The problem with software patents is that: 1) nearly all of them are immediately obvious to anyone with reasonable software skills and probably get independently re-invented dozens of times a year, and 2) the nature of algorithms and software design means that any given software patent tends to cover much more than what would normally be considered a single invention (e.g. like "inventing" the idea of leverage or momentum). This is exacerbated by the fact that the value of a software patent in a war chest can greatly exceed any reasonable need to re-coup the investment in the actual invention.
Early in my career, the first Windows programmer I worked with was female. She pwned me in terms of skillset. It was a valuable lesson.