Hmmm... let's discuss an example. Google came up with an innovation called the PageRank algorithm. Google filed a patent, and therefore had to explain the PageRank algorithm in great detail so that nearly any programmer could implement the algorithm. If Google had not been able to file a patent, mightn't they have decided to keep the PageRank algorithm a secret instead of let their idea spread? They could keep it a secret if they decided because the software runs only on Google servers.
Let's say tomorrow someone comes up with an algorithm for strong AI. Would you rather they keep their innovation a secret, or provide everyone with the details of the algorithm?
But the person who posted the Knuth quote is certainly acting as if there's a fact that can be proved or disproved, right or wrong. In other words, the point is that if you disagree with Knuth, that is equivalent to saying Knuth is wrong. That's fallacious reasoning.
Again, I never said Knuth was wrong. Knuth has one opinion and I have another. We can have different opinions with one person being wrong and another being right. I've never said I know better than Knuth. You're acting as if whether patents should be allowed or not is a matter of fact, when it is a matter of opinion.
My main reaction to Knuth's argument is that it is far, far better than the dreck usually posted against patents. I agree with most of what he says and he makes a good argument. I don't think he's wrong at all. Perhaps he goes too far.
It's not about "wrong" or "right". It's about a difference of opinion. I'm absolutely not saying Knuth is wrong. Do you see everything in life so black and white?
Why do you say there's no such thing as a software patent that doesn't hinder innovation? Without patent protection, people tend to keep their innovations secret, thus preventing the spread of new ideas. That's the whole idea behind the patent system. Are you against all patents altogether? If not, what's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation?
No, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with what language an algorithm is expressed in. I disagree that software is an algorithm. Software implements an algorithm. The Bubblesort algorithm is an algorithm that exists independent of any language. That algorithm could be patented. If I write a program that implements Bubblesort, I can copyright it. What you are doing is like confusing the blueprint of a machine with the machine constructed from the blueprints.
I think the real argument is that many patents for obvious algorithms have been granted. Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent. Open source advocates are against these kinds of patents because they can't distribute software freely if their software must use the patents, because there's no obvious way to pay royalties on the patents. I completely agree that these kinds of patents should be stopped. I disagree that the best solution is to abolish all patents on any algorithms, no matter how clever and useful. Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.
I would say that software patents currently hinder innovation more than they promote it. But that shouldn't be an argument for abolishing software patents any more than Ralph Nader's campaign against unsafe cars was an argument for abolishing cars. Just as we made cars safer, couldn't we fix the patent system so it doesn't hinder innovation?
You completely missed the point. Software isn't patentable. But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
Copyright is for software. Patents are for algorithms. We've covered this several times already. Also, if it were not for patents, inventors would have to keep their ideas secret to gain protection.
I suspect that the actual reason most people here are against software patents has no resemblance whatsoever for the arguments against software patents you're presenting. I think the reasoning given in the website is far more reasonable and, frankly, honest.
Software patents miss their legitimate purpose. Patents on software favour litigation in detriment of innovation, defeating their democratic justification. They force software producers to spend on bureaucracy, lawsuits, and circumventing dubious granted claims on software what would otherwise be spent on Research and Development. Owners of patents on software, who sometimes doesn't produce software themselves, obtain a means to exert unfair control over the market.
That's a much better argument than simply stating "software is math" over and over again.
First, inventions are what can be patented. If you invent an algorithm, why should you not be allowed to patent it?
Second, we don't need any argument to extend patents to algorithms. They already are. If you want to abolish software patents, however, you should make a good case for that move.
The website sure makes a whole lot more sense than the arguments against software patents I saw on Slashdot last week (main argument -- ideas can't be patented LOL). But it still doesn't seem to be able to explain why absolutely all software patents should be abolished.
You're assuming the MB means 1000000 bytes. What if on the user interface it's from or the person who is telling you means 1024 KB, where a KB is 1024 bytes? That's why I care. Disk sizes should be reported as GiB, MiB, and KiB to avoid this confusion. This is not only practical, but makes sense in theory because it matches the physical layout of the sectors of the disk. It perhaps makes more sense if you're trying to figure out how much memory is in the swap file or a core dump.
I care because if a sector is 4096 bytes, I can easily tell how many sectors a 4 MiB file takes (1024). Let's say someone says a file is 4 MB. How many 4 KiB sectors is that?
That's why many people are calling for a simple carbon tax. We already tax gasoline. Just also tax coal and natural gas to encourage efficient use of fossil fuels or use of non-fossil fuels. Of course, we should also tax goods from countries based on the carbon intensity of their industry so we don't simply shift fossil fuel use to other countries.
Excess water vapor in the atmosphere quickly precipitates out as rain or snow. Consequently, you can't increase global warming significantly only by attempting to add water vapor to the atmosphere. If the temperature increases, that can cause humidity to increase, and that can cause additional warming. In climatology, you say that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
Yes, I know, I'm ruining everybody's fun by mentioning facts again. What a party pooper!
Actually, that just points out the problem with AGW "science." There are so many variables, nobody really knows why the climate is changing. For now, it's a theory that "greenhouse gases" are causing a significant change in the climate. Another theory is sunspots.
And yet global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago. I suppose it's possible that the warming is coincident with the increase in greenhouse gasses, and that it really is solar output the is causing the warming, but I'm not aware of a single research paper that reaches that conclusion. If anything, many papers reach the conclusion that increased solar output cannot account for most of the warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... let's discuss an example. Google came up with an innovation called the PageRank algorithm. Google filed a patent, and therefore had to explain the PageRank algorithm in great detail so that nearly any programmer could implement the algorithm. If Google had not been able to file a patent, mightn't they have decided to keep the PageRank algorithm a secret instead of let their idea spread? They could keep it a secret if they decided because the software runs only on Google servers.
Let's say tomorrow someone comes up with an algorithm for strong AI. Would you rather they keep their innovation a secret, or provide everyone with the details of the algorithm?
But the person who posted the Knuth quote is certainly acting as if there's a fact that can be proved or disproved, right or wrong. In other words, the point is that if you disagree with Knuth, that is equivalent to saying Knuth is wrong. That's fallacious reasoning.
Again, I never said Knuth was wrong. Knuth has one opinion and I have another. We can have different opinions with one person being wrong and another being right. I've never said I know better than Knuth. You're acting as if whether patents should be allowed or not is a matter of fact, when it is a matter of opinion.
My main reaction to Knuth's argument is that it is far, far better than the dreck usually posted against patents. I agree with most of what he says and he makes a good argument. I don't think he's wrong at all. Perhaps he goes too far.
It's not about "wrong" or "right". It's about a difference of opinion. I'm absolutely not saying Knuth is wrong. Do you see everything in life so black and white?
The problem is I never said I know better than Knuth. That was your strawman.
It just isn't a good Slashdot discussion without the old appeal to authority fallacy.
Why do you say there's no such thing as a software patent that doesn't hinder innovation? Without patent protection, people tend to keep their innovations secret, thus preventing the spread of new ideas. That's the whole idea behind the patent system. Are you against all patents altogether? If not, what's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation?
No, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with what language an algorithm is expressed in. I disagree that software is an algorithm. Software implements an algorithm. The Bubblesort algorithm is an algorithm that exists independent of any language. That algorithm could be patented. If I write a program that implements Bubblesort, I can copyright it. What you are doing is like confusing the blueprint of a machine with the machine constructed from the blueprints.
I think the real argument is that many patents for obvious algorithms have been granted. Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent. Open source advocates are against these kinds of patents because they can't distribute software freely if their software must use the patents, because there's no obvious way to pay royalties on the patents. I completely agree that these kinds of patents should be stopped. I disagree that the best solution is to abolish all patents on any algorithms, no matter how clever and useful. Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.
I would say that software patents currently hinder innovation more than they promote it. But that shouldn't be an argument for abolishing software patents any more than Ralph Nader's campaign against unsafe cars was an argument for abolishing cars. Just as we made cars safer, couldn't we fix the patent system so it doesn't hinder innovation?
You completely missed the point. Software isn't patentable. But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
My first thought was that it was an energizer. Will Saturn's other moons turn blue and run away?
I sincerely apologize. I'm a PC and Bing was my idea. Sorry!
Copyright is for software. Patents are for algorithms. We've covered this several times already. Also, if it were not for patents, inventors would have to keep their ideas secret to gain protection.
That's a much better argument than simply stating "software is math" over and over again.
First, inventions are what can be patented. If you invent an algorithm, why should you not be allowed to patent it?
Second, we don't need any argument to extend patents to algorithms. They already are. If you want to abolish software patents, however, you should make a good case for that move.
The website sure makes a whole lot more sense than the arguments against software patents I saw on Slashdot last week (main argument -- ideas can't be patented LOL). But it still doesn't seem to be able to explain why absolutely all software patents should be abolished.
You're assuming the MB means 1000000 bytes. What if on the user interface it's from or the person who is telling you means 1024 KB, where a KB is 1024 bytes? That's why I care. Disk sizes should be reported as GiB, MiB, and KiB to avoid this confusion. This is not only practical, but makes sense in theory because it matches the physical layout of the sectors of the disk. It perhaps makes more sense if you're trying to figure out how much memory is in the swap file or a core dump.
I care because if a sector is 4096 bytes, I can easily tell how many sectors a 4 MiB file takes (1024). Let's say someone says a file is 4 MB. How many 4 KiB sectors is that?
Someone tell these guys what a cube is.
That's why many people are calling for a simple carbon tax. We already tax gasoline. Just also tax coal and natural gas to encourage efficient use of fossil fuels or use of non-fossil fuels. Of course, we should also tax goods from countries based on the carbon intensity of their industry so we don't simply shift fossil fuel use to other countries.
Excess water vapor in the atmosphere quickly precipitates out as rain or snow. Consequently, you can't increase global warming significantly only by attempting to add water vapor to the atmosphere. If the temperature increases, that can cause humidity to increase, and that can cause additional warming. In climatology, you say that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
Yes, I know, I'm ruining everybody's fun by mentioning facts again. What a party pooper!
And yet global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago. I suppose it's possible that the warming is coincident with the increase in greenhouse gasses, and that it really is solar output the is causing the warming, but I'm not aware of a single research paper that reaches that conclusion. If anything, many papers reach the conclusion that increased solar output cannot account for most of the warming.
A rate of global warming 1000 times greater than it is now would be 200 degrees Celsius per decade. WTF are you smoking?
Ah, more of the blame game. Looking for a fight, huh?