"No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union."
And the others owned slaves.
The point that the US founding fathers didn't know everything, thought things that are probably not applicable today and/or were the same flawed human beings that the rest of us are is good to keep in mind.
The difference between gun ownership in Switzerland and in the US is that the Swiss who keep automatic rifles in their closets are trained to use them.
And I completely agree with you that Jefferson's ideas on patents and the associated ideas on copyrights were pretty much bang on and just as correct today as they were then.
"The open-source philosophy is all about unexpected, disruptive ideas bubbling upwards, and that drives network planners nuts."
Open source phones are about being user configurable, extendable and customizable. Wireless carriers like to charge for features, by the feature, and they don't like forking over what you've already paid for. That's pretty hard to do when you don't control one end of the transaction, as others have found out.
No buzzwords or BS about "disruptive ideas bubbling upwards" required.
I don't understand your objection. Yes, publicly released programs can be decompiled and any novel algorithms they implement are thereby publicly disclosed. In that case patents are NOT needed to encourage disclosure (reason for patents #1) but they are needed to encourage continued innovation (reason for patents #2). That is, there is more than one reason why we award patents and most software implementable algorithms fall under the second reason.
Nowhere have I said that software patents are needed to encourage disclosure, except in the special case where the software is of such a nature that it does not need to be distributed.
Word gets pretty slow when you hit a hundred pages with figures on a Core Duo, but you could always just use LaTeX or a file per chapter. I managed to get my dissertation done with just two cores and my parents managed with a typewriter (although those were masters, not PhDs).
It's a curiosity. There isn't really a "legitimate audience." Rest assured, the resulting slides, which are actually of interest scientifically, will be available via more than a live webcast.
The reason for patents is two fold: it is to a) encourage innovation and b) encourage those innovations to be disclosed.
You're right, (b) is more or less taken care of. Unless of course I decide to use my software to help my business and don't ever tell anyone about it. In that case a software patent serves exactly the same purpose as a regular patent.
(a) however is in jeopardy for software. Why should I invest in inventing a fast algorithm to compress images if, as soon as I release software that uses it, everyone can just code it up themselves for free?
I don't know where you get the idea (which you have asserted several times in this discussion) that the sole purpose of a patent system is to encourage disclosure of inventions. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the US patent system was thrilled that his new system encouraged inventors to invent. Encouraging invention is cited as a rationale behind many other patent systems as well, including those that preceded the US system, right back to 500 BC. In 17th century France disclosure was not even required.
Take a read through the wikipedia entry "Patent". It even has citations.
Sure, but us English speakers make a point of assuming that everything works according to our system so when we meet a chinese person named Lu Hong we refer to her as Ms. Hong or, if we're friendly, Lu. Same goes for Leonardo da Vinci.
Yeah, I didn't want to give away my analytical three body solution.
I agree with your point. The way you stated it could have been misinterpreted when translated to software. I think we need to have algorithm patents because releasing software is effectively public disclosure because, with the software, time and motivation, I can disassemble and understand your algorithm. With many other processes keeping them as trade secrets is an option - refining aluminum for example. I can keep my refinement process perfectly secret by only selling you the end product.
On another topic, there's certainly value in algorithms like the logistics ones you mention, but the really amazing ones are the formulae and algorithms that are simple, even obvious... after you know how they work. The FFT, wavelets, calculus, the great theories of physics. Even F=ma is non-obvious since it wasn't discovered for thousands of years.
They also mostly steer clear of the dangerous stuff. The personality types are basically a horoscope and all they do is suggest two of the types might benefit from a "healthy diet" (no duh), the third might enjoy vegetarianism, and the fourth might be a meat eater.
"If, however, municipalities ban the book from their library shelves,"
Notice how you switched from "private school library" to "municipalities?"
There's a big difference between a private library not carrying some book or another and a municipality, that is, a public entity, deciding that a book will be suppressed. You probably won't find a copy of "The Satanic Bible" at any of the multitudes of private Christian colleges either. Does that infringe on the author's right to freedom of speech? Not a bit.
Censorship is a serious attempt to suppress a message. One company saying they prefer not to have something on their servers not censorship. A government banning something is. If the mayor and council of city X decide that no copies of the Satanic Bible will be allowed in their jurisdiction, THAT is censorship.
I'm not saying that Google's policing of their part of "the cloud" isn't a serious issue. It certainly convinces me that I don't want to depend on cloud computing. But that's the difference - I don't have to depend on Google Docs to convey my message for me, so this isn't censorship. Nobody's right to freedom of speech has been infringed.
Generally most OS updates are either a) people who fail to read the documentation describing things that will not work or b) people who are running shady software hacks.
Either way, if you're running Apple hardware you have support, warranties, etc. If you're running a hackintosh you don't. From what he said in the summary, that's an important factor to this guy.
Find someone who is "pro-life" and engage them in "debate." You'll find there is not only no universally accepted answer but that it's such an emotionally loaded topic that rational consideration is generally impossible as well.
Yes, censorship is censorship, and you're using the word incorrectly.
The guy whose homework was eaten may indeed find the situation very serious and he should certainly think twice about trusting important documents to third parties again, but he was not censored. He is free to distribute his ideas as he wishes, using his own means of communication.
To summarize: there is a problem, but it is not censorship.
Yes, and this is indistinguishable from the concept of "a server," which makes the "cloud" part of "private cloud" even more meaningless than usual. As I said.
No it's not. If I own a building I don't have to let you "express yourself" all over the wall.
Google owns it's servers and software. They let you use them, subject to certain conditions. If you don't like those conditions, don't use them (an approach which I take to a greater or lesser degree).
Censorship is serious. Save the rant for when there's actually some censorship going on otherwise we'll be in a crying wolf situation.
Exactly. If the word "cloud" means anything at all, it means that the server is owned and maintained by someone else. Thus "private cloud" is an oxymoron.
"Dissasembly is of course a white box that allows you to copy the algorithim without necassarily understanding it."
Disassembly is a white box that lets you see how the algorithm is working, so you can understand it. In terms of your 3 body solution, disassembly would be the equivalent of you giving me your 3 body formula, albeit perhaps using non-standard symbols (but still telling me what those symbols stand for).
It's not that hard to go from P = xb to F = ma, particularly not when you tell me that P is force, x is mass and b is acceleration.
A particular software implementation is covered by copyright. I can take your great idea and rewrite it and, provided I make it different enough that it was not obviously copied from your implementation, I'm fine. Copyright is only protection for large projects, many of which do not contain any novelty at all, that would be overly onerous to rewrite. It doesn't protect algorithms and such at all.
Patents on software implementations are not needed because, as you point out, they are covered by copyright (and usually aren't novel anyway). But patents on algorithms, which are unfortunately covered by the term "software patent" are no different than hardware patents. In fact, the current legal tactic is to take an algorithm and describe it in terms of hardware, even if it's silly to do so, instead of as an algorithm.
The problem is that stupid things, "hardware," software and other are being patented. Doing X on the [Internet|Linux|a smartphone] isn't worth a patent. Something like the FFT is.
Your scheme would require some method to digest the "food crud" (a digestive system) and turn it into simpler compounds (a digestive system), some way to get those compounds to the cells and take away and process waste products (circulatory, filtering and excretory systems) and something to control it all (a nervous system). Once you do all that, you might as well just use the cow.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union."
And the others owned slaves.
The point that the US founding fathers didn't know everything, thought things that are probably not applicable today and/or were the same flawed human beings that the rest of us are is good to keep in mind.
The difference between gun ownership in Switzerland and in the US is that the Swiss who keep automatic rifles in their closets are trained to use them.
And I completely agree with you that Jefferson's ideas on patents and the associated ideas on copyrights were pretty much bang on and just as correct today as they were then.
Yeah, but 2005 was calling on a smart phone. Over Skype.
"The open-source philosophy is all about unexpected, disruptive ideas bubbling upwards, and that drives network planners nuts."
Open source phones are about being user configurable, extendable and customizable. Wireless carriers like to charge for features, by the feature, and they don't like forking over what you've already paid for. That's pretty hard to do when you don't control one end of the transaction, as others have found out.
No buzzwords or BS about "disruptive ideas bubbling upwards" required.
I don't understand your objection. Yes, publicly released programs can be decompiled and any novel algorithms they implement are thereby publicly disclosed. In that case patents are NOT needed to encourage disclosure (reason for patents #1) but they are needed to encourage continued innovation (reason for patents #2). That is, there is more than one reason why we award patents and most software implementable algorithms fall under the second reason.
Nowhere have I said that software patents are needed to encourage disclosure, except in the special case where the software is of such a nature that it does not need to be distributed.
Word gets pretty slow when you hit a hundred pages with figures on a Core Duo, but you could always just use LaTeX or a file per chapter. I managed to get my dissertation done with just two cores and my parents managed with a typewriter (although those were masters, not PhDs).
It's a curiosity. There isn't really a "legitimate audience." Rest assured, the resulting slides, which are actually of interest scientifically, will be available via more than a live webcast.
The reason for patents is two fold: it is to a) encourage innovation and b) encourage those innovations to be disclosed.
You're right, (b) is more or less taken care of. Unless of course I decide to use my software to help my business and don't ever tell anyone about it. In that case a software patent serves exactly the same purpose as a regular patent.
(a) however is in jeopardy for software. Why should I invest in inventing a fast algorithm to compress images if, as soon as I release software that uses it, everyone can just code it up themselves for free?
I don't know where you get the idea (which you have asserted several times in this discussion) that the sole purpose of a patent system is to encourage disclosure of inventions. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the US patent system was thrilled that his new system encouraged inventors to invent. Encouraging invention is cited as a rationale behind many other patent systems as well, including those that preceded the US system, right back to 500 BC. In 17th century France disclosure was not even required.
Take a read through the wikipedia entry "Patent". It even has citations.
You'd be surprised. I come from a place where a bag of groceries can get boughten.
Sure, but us English speakers make a point of assuming that everything works according to our system so when we meet a chinese person named Lu Hong we refer to her as Ms. Hong or, if we're friendly, Lu. Same goes for Leonardo da Vinci.
"F=MA is a trivial example."
Yeah, I didn't want to give away my analytical three body solution.
I agree with your point. The way you stated it could have been misinterpreted when translated to software. I think we need to have algorithm patents because releasing software is effectively public disclosure because, with the software, time and motivation, I can disassemble and understand your algorithm. With many other processes keeping them as trade secrets is an option - refining aluminum for example. I can keep my refinement process perfectly secret by only selling you the end product.
On another topic, there's certainly value in algorithms like the logistics ones you mention, but the really amazing ones are the formulae and algorithms that are simple, even obvious... after you know how they work. The FFT, wavelets, calculus, the great theories of physics. Even F=ma is non-obvious since it wasn't discovered for thousands of years.
They also mostly steer clear of the dangerous stuff. The personality types are basically a horoscope and all they do is suggest two of the types might benefit from a "healthy diet" (no duh), the third might enjoy vegetarianism, and the fourth might be a meat eater.
It's stupid, but not like the summary suggests.
"If, however, municipalities ban the book from their library shelves,"
Notice how you switched from "private school library" to "municipalities?"
There's a big difference between a private library not carrying some book or another and a municipality, that is, a public entity, deciding that a book will be suppressed. You probably won't find a copy of "The Satanic Bible" at any of the multitudes of private Christian colleges either. Does that infringe on the author's right to freedom of speech? Not a bit.
Censorship is a serious attempt to suppress a message. One company saying they prefer not to have something on their servers not censorship. A government banning something is. If the mayor and council of city X decide that no copies of the Satanic Bible will be allowed in their jurisdiction, THAT is censorship.
I'm not saying that Google's policing of their part of "the cloud" isn't a serious issue. It certainly convinces me that I don't want to depend on cloud computing. But that's the difference - I don't have to depend on Google Docs to convey my message for me, so this isn't censorship. Nobody's right to freedom of speech has been infringed.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3258
Besides which, you're talking about apps. I'm talking about the OS not working.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10319435-264.html
Everything back to CS1 apparently runs just fine. What's the problem?
Generally most OS updates are either a) people who fail to read the documentation describing things that will not work or b) people who are running shady software hacks.
Either way, if you're running Apple hardware you have support, warranties, etc. If you're running a hackintosh you don't. From what he said in the summary, that's an important factor to this guy.
Find someone who is "pro-life" and engage them in "debate." You'll find there is not only no universally accepted answer but that it's such an emotionally loaded topic that rational consideration is generally impossible as well.
Feeding them properly apparently helps a lot.
Yes, censorship is censorship, and you're using the word incorrectly.
The guy whose homework was eaten may indeed find the situation very serious and he should certainly think twice about trusting important documents to third parties again, but he was not censored. He is free to distribute his ideas as he wishes, using his own means of communication.
To summarize: there is a problem, but it is not censorship.
Sure. But you have no guarantee it will continue to work. As the Atom hackintosh owners found out.
It might be a small risk, but it's a risk nevertheless.
With the important distinction that as far as the OS cares it's a real Mac. Thus OS updates work with no problem.
Yes, and this is indistinguishable from the concept of "a server," which makes the "cloud" part of "private cloud" even more meaningless than usual. As I said.
No it's not. If I own a building I don't have to let you "express yourself" all over the wall.
Google owns it's servers and software. They let you use them, subject to certain conditions. If you don't like those conditions, don't use them (an approach which I take to a greater or lesser degree).
Censorship is serious. Save the rant for when there's actually some censorship going on otherwise we'll be in a crying wolf situation.
Exactly. If the word "cloud" means anything at all, it means that the server is owned and maintained by someone else. Thus "private cloud" is an oxymoron.
"Dissasembly is of course a white box that allows you to copy the algorithim without necassarily understanding it."
Disassembly is a white box that lets you see how the algorithm is working, so you can understand it. In terms of your 3 body solution, disassembly would be the equivalent of you giving me your 3 body formula, albeit perhaps using non-standard symbols (but still telling me what those symbols stand for).
It's not that hard to go from P = xb to F = ma, particularly not when you tell me that P is force, x is mass and b is acceleration.
A particular software implementation is covered by copyright. I can take your great idea and rewrite it and, provided I make it different enough that it was not obviously copied from your implementation, I'm fine. Copyright is only protection for large projects, many of which do not contain any novelty at all, that would be overly onerous to rewrite. It doesn't protect algorithms and such at all.
Patents on software implementations are not needed because, as you point out, they are covered by copyright (and usually aren't novel anyway). But patents on algorithms, which are unfortunately covered by the term "software patent" are no different than hardware patents. In fact, the current legal tactic is to take an algorithm and describe it in terms of hardware, even if it's silly to do so, instead of as an algorithm.
The problem is that stupid things, "hardware," software and other are being patented. Doing X on the [Internet|Linux|a smartphone] isn't worth a patent. Something like the FFT is.
We have such a thing. They're called "cows."
Your scheme would require some method to digest the "food crud" (a digestive system) and turn it into simpler compounds (a digestive system), some way to get those compounds to the cells and take away and process waste products (circulatory, filtering and excretory systems) and something to control it all (a nervous system). Once you do all that, you might as well just use the cow.