Besides, 9/11 only killed 3000 or so people. I know I'm touching a sore-spot here, but it's really not all that big a deal. The civilian death toll in Iraq is already five times that number. Is it justified? How are the Iraqi lifes worth less than US ones?
I posted the original "armed robots deter outright warfare but might foster terrorism" sentiment in this thread.
I'm jumping into this discussion, but if you must know, Iraqi lives are worth less because they don't share in the profits of the Iraqi economy. You don't have to like it, but that's the fact.
Say there have been 20,000 deaths in the latest Iraqi war - hell, say there have 40,000. What a travesty! Consider what's been going on simultaneously in Sudan and nobody really cares. You know why? Because those Sudanese people are poor and Sudan doesn't have enough of an economy to make a rescue mission economically feasible. If you cornered the member nations of the UN, you'd discover that they really only want to send troops to "keep the peace" in nations that can cover the bill in the years to come.
So I guess this just establishes that I'm truly not some hippy anti-war asshole. The extent that I believe war "isn't the answer" is restricted only to the observation that a sufficiently motivated enemy will kill you beyond the battlefield, and no amount of armed robots will address that problem.
By the way - the term "LORD" is the English substitution for YHWH = Yahweh, the name of God revealed to Abraham. The term God by itself indicates the original text read "Adonai", the word for "god" (not capitalized, but referring to the same old guy living in the clouds). Notice that the story of Abraham happens AFTER the flood, however the story of the flood includes (in English) "LORD", meaning that parts of the story were written after (or during) the time of Abraham.
The story of the Tower of Bab-el is another piece of evidence for your argument. The story is a subtle mockery of those silly city people, with their tall buildings and arrogant attitudes, and how God punishes them. In order to tell such a story, the contemporary audience must have been something other than city silly people, such as nomadic herders.
I used to think that these things were unfair and that US (or the west in general) soldiers shouldn't be so out of risk or as powerful. Then i realized, fuck that. What war does to a soldier, i cannot completely comprehend. But i can comprehend it enough to say that any tech that means fewer soldiers have to die, that its a good thing.
Another angle on this is that mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons was enough intimidation that it prevented nuclear war. In a similar fashion, fighting a war where your side suffers human losses while the enemy loses robots would be a humiliating, demoralizing experience - perhaps to an extent that fighting against such a miliatary would be a lost cause before the first round is fired.
There are pros and cons to that - it could be a very real deterrent to warfare, but it could just as easily alienate and silence people with a just cause for fighting. I doubt those people would shrug their shoulders and go home - they'd probably settle for guerilla warfare amongst the civilian population where an armed robot isn't a feasible option. Hm, not a far cry from terrorism.
I'm seriously not a hippy but the prevalence of "insurgent" style warfare these days is starting to convince me that war really isn't the answer - not because war is unhappy or unpleasant, but because people who are motivated enough to fight a war will express themselves despite being outright defeated in a war. If they want to kill, they'll kill regardless of your tanks or soldiers or barricades or armed robots. It's just too bad that nobody tosses tea into the harbor anymore.
Differentiate between the IT field as known in the media (including Slashdot) and actual science. I'm not going to split hairs with anybody who bothers to reply to me, but the IT field as known in the media typically refers to help desks, sysadmins, website developers, support staff, and some low level software development. In short, it's not your dream job.
(If you identify yourself as "in the IT field" and take exception to that, go ahead and reply - I swear upon my life that I couldn't care.)
Fields like scientific computing (simulations, serious number crunching, clusters), control systems (missle guidance, HVAC systems (for complicated stuff, not your apartment building), flight controls, engine controls), anything biochem or bioinformatics, and PhD level stuff in software engineering (new UI paradigms (I opine that "paradigm" is the appropriate word when talking about software engineering), interface designs, ubiquitous computing, etc.) is NOT what is typically referred to as the "IT field".
It's roughly the line separating commercial software and corporate tech support from R&D science. If you want to do the IT field work, give my regards to your fellow 3rd shift factory workers. If you want to work in hard science, I expect you'll have a job in the U.S. so long as you're not a total klutz.
Take as much math as you can stomach - it won't help you write code, but it'll help you design a missle guidance system. Code writing is going to be a cheap, cheap skill in the future. Knowing how a missle guidance system works is always going to be an expensive skill. As long as you make that distinction when you're young, you should be fine.
In unrelated news, sources report that knive sales have skyrocketed in recent days. No plausible explanation could be found.
Along those lines, am I to believe that groups of people wouldn't burn the sound of a bunch of gunshots onto a CD, pop it in & punch play on their ludicrously loud car stereo system, stand on the opposite side of the street, and merrily shoot someone?
If the article addresses that, don't blame me - I can't be bothered with reading it.
Do you dispute that at that point a human brain is "machine readable media"
Yes, as I plainly stated in concise English, making this interpretation is an abuse of the language under which the patent issued. Maybe one day we'll call a pair of pliars by the name "a thumb". Considering every human with a thumb to infringe on that patent is a juvenile exercise in making ourselves feel oh so clever.
There are already many such patents.
Cite me one or understand that I consider you to be talking out of your ass. You can view the entire patent database at www.uspto.gov. Keep in mind that case law regarding this issue has been rapidly evolving over the last 5 years - a claim that recites "a software method on a computer readable medium, the method comprising:" is no longer considered statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106, In re Sarker) and though they may be found on patents from a few years ago, such preambles would be immediately attacked in an infringement suit.
Yes it is an absurd result, because such patents are absurd in the first place.
And if such patents existed, your point would be poignant. Since you're already talking about a land of fairy tales and have demonstrated that you really aren't terribly informed about the patent system, you are the guy who posts on Slashdot about how awesome Microsoft Windows is. In the realm of patents, you are that guy. I have clearly stated at least twice that a patent for a computing machine configured to execute an algorithm is congruent as a pair of pliars which performs according to a physics equation. The pliars do not claim patent protection on the physics equation, nor does the "software patent" (your term) actually patent the abstract algorithm. If you are unable to make this connection then that, sir, is your failure and not mine.
Once the concept of using human brains for data storage in a Von Neumann fetch-decode-execute computing arrangement were as well known in the art as a floppy disk, and such a method is construed as functionally equivalent as a floppy disk (there is no advantage whatsoever to using human brains as a storage medium), and you concoct such a system which fetches, decodes, and executes the algorithm stored in a human brain, then maybe - MAYBE - you're not making a retarded argument. Oh yeah - AND this has to happen within 20 years of today, otherwise you couldn't possibly be talking about infringing any existing patent. Seriously, have some self respect - I strongly urge understanding your topic before trying to make a point. The "human brain" as a "computer readable medium" is offensive to anyone with any experience in the patent system.
Software itself is not patentable in the United States. See MPEP 2105 and 2106. I have led the horse to the river but I cannot force it to drink; that your opinion is based on fantasy rather than fact is your own responsibility.
That is nothing but an algorithm patent with the the magic words "on computer" trivially slapped on the end.
At which point you have a machine which is configured to perform the algorithm. While you may disagree with this distinction, a tangible computer which executes an algorithm is no more a patent on abstract mathematics than a pair of pliars is a patent on physics.
I would like to point out that at some point medical scanning technology almost certainly *will* advance to the point where information stored in the human brain becomes machine readable. At that point KNOWING algorithm is then a patent violation, LOL. Whoops!
Apparently I spoke too soon about being informed about the patent system. Under no circumstances whatsoever would "knowing an algorithm" be an issue of patent infringement (there is no such thing as a patent violation, of course.) Patents are published for the specific purpose of allowing others in the field to learn from and improve upon the previous work known in the field. Patent infringement consists of using the unmodified teachings of an issue patent, not knowing the patent. Unless you have what is commonly referred to as a "computer" inside your skull, the situation you describe is best known as Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
And before you get all clever, there is no judge on this planet who would buy the argument that a patent issued in a computer related classification referring to a "computer" could be construed as a human brain. That is a completely undefendable position in a patent infringement suit.
It's nice to read a comment from someone who knows more than the average Slashdotter about the patent system.
Merely sticking a computer in an otherwise non-patentable plane is neither novel nor non-obvious. Merely saying "X with a computer" is rarely novel, and it's hard to imagine it ever qualifing as non-obvious.
The reason I refer to the F-117 is that the plane is entirely uncontrollable without a computer. Without the hardware/software system on that airframe, the entire plane is useless. It cannot be flown without computer control. The invention, in this case, is using a computer to achieve something which a human being (brain and all) cannot accomplish.
A brain is such a processor. Those instructions can always - in principal - be executed purely mentally.
Actually, with the preamble I offered, this would only be true in the most bizarre and absurd circumstances. If a patent is issued in a computer-related classification and the preamble refers to a stored program which causes a processor to execute, a judge would be incredibly deficient in his responsibilities to allow a litigant to interpret that as "a brain". For another example, a "database" could be anything from a brain to a filing cabinet to a MySQL daemon, however that definition refers strictly to a computer-implemented database server when a patent is issued from a database classification. While it's possible to argue otherwise, to do so would be as plausible as blaming McDonald's for making a customer fat.
I think we agree about a number of issues - you cannot get a patent on an idea, algorithm, or mathematical method. You also cannot get a patent on the concept of a lever, torque, or rotational velocity, however you can patent a pair of pliars. Likewise, you cannot patent the notion of a an encryption algorithm, however you can patent (with regard to 35 USC 101) a machine which performs an encryption method. This is no more a software patent than a pair of pliars are a physics patent.
In any event, it's still false that you can simply claim software "on a computer readable medium". The MPEP has an entire (unclear) section about doing exactly this. Even if we agree about the major issues but are splitting hairs over the details, I think it's a little irresponsible to sperad the idea on Slashdot that it's possible to get a software patent in the US by claiming the software is stored on a computer disk. That is completely false.
If the invention, as a whole, is software per se, then it should not be considered nonstatutory under 35 USC 101.
I have too many negatives in this sentence. It should read:
If the invention, as a whole, is software per se, then it should be considered nonstatutory under 35 USC 101.
Software implementation is already covered by copyright. The algorithm inside the software was never previously patentable, as a result most existing software is built on algorithms that haven't been disclosed.
YOU CAN'T TELL THE ALGORITHMS USED FROM THE COMPILED RESULT.
Hence prior-art can't be established because you can't see inside the old software.
If copyright is sufficient, then all code would be open sourced. If all code was open sourced, then you could see inside old software. If you could see inside old software, you could establish prior art. You can't establish prior art because you can't see inside old software because all software is not open source because (drumroll) copyright is insufficient.
Because seriously, if copyright was insufficient, what do you have to gain by keeping your product closed source? You run the risk of having someone patent your methods out from under you, but what do you gain? You save yourself the embarrassment of having your shitty code exposed - glory be to the wonderful technological innovations preserved here.
It seems offensively clear to me that it would take someone wholly submissive to the pedagoguery of their heroes - brilliant computer programmers but, at best, amateur lawyers - to believe that copyright is sufficient at protecting software implementation.
That's how development works in general: you take an existing thing, add your own ideas and wow: there's an improved version
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or ANY NEW AND USEFUL IMPROVEMENT THEREOF, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Emphasis subtley added.
I know it's fun to form a mob and hate stuff because our heroes hate it, but sometimes heroes turn out to be regular people when they're out of their element. I don't hear Linus giving advice on vascular surgery or auto mechanics, but everyone is so keen to hear what he thinks about legal issues. It's funny, I guess I must have been sick on the days when he showed up to law school.
The brief paragraph he gives about "prior art" for "ludicrous" patents indicates to me that he has never had an adversarial relationship with a patent attorney.
The concept of "prior art" he gives would completely rewrite the foundations of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, which establish the concepts of "novel" and "non-obvious", yet he insists he doesn't want to perform radical surgery on the patent system.
Tell a lawyer that he's prosecuting a "ludicrous" application. Tell a defense lawyer he's making a "ludicrous" defense. They'll laugh at your naivety. Absolutely adorable. They'll be "ludicrous" 29 hours a day and beat you up down with the law, take your money, and win the contest.
And, it's adorable how he wants to reward people for proving someone submitted a "ludicrous" patent application. Again, I seriously doubt he's ever dealt with a patent attorney in an adversarial role. Lawyers will burn to death rather than let you douse them with water - unless you can prove to them that you have the legal jurisdiction to douse them with water. Prove that they have a "ludicrous" application? Please.
He suggests that "a herd of patent lawyers" will lead the charge in proving what applications are "ludicrous". If I haven't made myself clear, the notion that you can prove that an application is "ludicrous" would be the most painful, brain-hurting, retarded process on the face of the Earth. What's to stop a corporation from backing a team of ludicrous application hunting lawyers from litigating the hell out of anybody they choose? They might lose, but they'll incur costs, they'll buy time in which they can file competing applications, or they might win a few. Is there ANY accountability on these leeches?
So, as much as you have asked for input, there's mine. The guy's heart is probably in the right place, but I seriously think he's out of his element.
If the patent includes something new and something non-obvious and it mentions patentable subject matter then it meets all three criteria and gets approved.
This is false at a wholesale level.
If the claims mention some patentable subject matter, and the invention as a whole is patentable subject matter (you are correct in that) then the application passes the statutory subject matter requirement of 35 USC 101 (In re Sarkar). There are other requirements of 35 USC 101, plus 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 which must be satisfied. If you have the best compression algorithm in the world, but you claim it without producing a tangible result although "stored on a computer readable medium", you will be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Now you get patents on a mathematical equation stored on any computer readable media.
This is entirely false. While case law may have permitted this a few years ago, a claim with such a preamble is an immediate rejection under 35 USC 101 these days.
The math is new and non-obvious, the floppy disk is a patentable physical object, and "as a whole" they satisfy all three criteria for a patent. Groan.
Again, this is entirely false. If the invention, as a whole, is software per se, then it should not be considered nonstatutory under 35 USC 101. If you have an example of such a patent being issued in years past under the case law of years past, good luck enforcing today with today's case law. Many at Slashdot don't have the slightest inkling how the concept of case law works in practice. I'm not saying you have this problem, but if you do understand how case law works, I suspect you share my frustration and understand why I'd put a caveat on comments about it.
The fine line, and I insist it is a FINE line, is that systems or methods which actually interact tangibly with computer hardware are considered patentable. This enables the computer flight control system of the F-117A stealth fighter to be a patentable invention - and why not? It clearly is a novel and unobvious use of computers, the plane couldn't fly without the computers, and the invention has undoubtedly spun off into other advances in technology. The flip side is that you can claim "a stored program which causes a processor to execute a method wherein..." but in doing so, you ARE in fact limiting the scope of the claims to a computer-implemented invention rather than a disembodied, abstract invention.
And my standard summary: There are volumes of factually incorrect information about the US patent system on Slashdot. Maybe the community (moderators, posters, lurkers) should focus more effort on personal information gathering and opinion forming rather than reading what a few pedagogues have written and reiterating their talking points. Just a suggestion. (I'm not suggesting that you, to whom I reply, suffers this need - but this is my standard summary topic.)
Correct and unions hate right to work states. They would like to take that freedom away from the workers to better protect them.
Alright, but what else is new? Water is wet? People organize to seize power rather than to do good deeds?
I also worked at a manufacturing plant in Michigan that was unionized in the 1970s, split from their union, and the union wanted back in while I was there in the late 1990s/early 2000s. They had representatives, spread pamphlets, shook hands, spread the good word of how excellent it would be with a union. They pretty much got ridiculed off the property by the laborers - in Michigan. The workers enjoy an excellent seniority system, profit sharing, an incredibly safety conscious workplace, a positive relationship with management, and it's shocking what it takes to get fired.
Unions aren't much different from any other power grab in history. They just happen to directly affect the livelihood of millions of people (as does management), while the Freemasons are a little antiquated.
For the people that do not know how a "union shop" works if you work there you MUST join the union. You MUST pay the union DUES. You have no choice in the matter.
Virginia (and certainly some others) are "Right to Work" states where you cannot be forced to join a union in order to obtain employment, cannot be forced to pay union dues, union bargaining still protects you, however the union can require you pay dues to vote.
It is illegal to not pay them overtime. Somehow computer programmers got exempted from this rule. I see this as an issue. I would prefer to fix the laws and enforce the ones we have than to force unions on the workers.
I'm no expert on labor laws, but I believe this is an oversimplification. The issue here is voluntary overtime - ideally this is when you want to get ahead or make up for your long lunches. If the worker charged for this overtime and only produced a standard 40 hour amount of work, he is inefficient or manages time poorly. In an economy where lots of workers are eager to take his job, what incentive does the company have for discouraging volunteer overtime? It is a backdoor to overtime-by-intimidation, but I really can't conceive of a good market-implemented decision.
An oversupply of labor will always be an oversupply of labor. I have a BS in mathematics and a BS in computer science and now I work in law - couldn't be happier. It sucks to be somebody, but not me.
I think that PalmOne is right in choosing to use a block based filesystem. There is obvious limits on the the old method, and while this has some problems, from what I gather they could easily solve them by instead of having each contact data in a seperate file, moving it to one file (or having a 'zip folder' which could expand and look like a normal folder when opened).
That's a very informative comment. (I can't be bothered with reading this article about something I don't and won't own.) The summary was very uninformative in saying that storage is addressed in 512 byte blocks, oh the horror!
This problem seems pretty clearly one of software implementation rather than a file system flaw - of course this is Slashdot. Thanks for the information, though.
I base my judgments of morality not on Religion (which has morals but no rational grounding for them)
Oh, I think they have plenty of rational grounding for them, but there simply wasn't an appealling reason for the authors to include a balanced discussion of the pros and cons for their societal laws 1500 or 2000 years ago. I also doubt very much that the authors were planning ahead for the changes in society that might happen over the next 2000 years.
If we had a time machine and asked these guys why sex out of wedlock is such a big problem, I think you'd find that women, who were uneducated, denied civil rights (property, leadership roles, etc.), unable to support themselves independently (through no fault of their own, of course) became a burden on the entire community if they were pregnant outside of marriage. Nobody wanted to marry the handled goods, so there wasn't a path to solvency for those women. I'd imagine that to a young unmarried woman, becoming pregnant was a death sentence either way - by starvation or by criminal punishment.
However, if women in those days were educated, independent, able to support themselves, and they had birth control, I strongly doubt that adultry or sex out of wedlock would have carried such a stiff penalty. The problem simply would not have represented such a crisis for the ancient community. Of course, I've got nothing buy hypothesis, but it makes sense across the board. The disappointing thing is when people try to take these moral judgements that were originally based on rational and pragmatic decisions about ancient culture and insist that they must be applied to the letter on a foreign culture. Of course, they're primarily interested in keeping the homosexuals down - they don't force their wives to live in remote huts when they menstruate to protect men from the innate uncleanliness of women. It's all pick and choose, I guess.
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit!
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Public policy is made according to money, not common sense. As long as you resist this truth, you will find yourself at odds with the universe. Old people vote and old people have AARP and other organizations. Old people having accidents produces an economy for medical services, lawyers, and auto mechanics to name just a few. Public policy is made according to money, not common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted the original "armed robots deter outright warfare but might foster terrorism" sentiment in this thread.
I'm jumping into this discussion, but if you must know, Iraqi lives are worth less because they don't share in the profits of the Iraqi economy. You don't have to like it, but that's the fact.
Say there have been 20,000 deaths in the latest Iraqi war - hell, say there have 40,000. What a travesty! Consider what's been going on simultaneously in Sudan and nobody really cares. You know why? Because those Sudanese people are poor and Sudan doesn't have enough of an economy to make a rescue mission economically feasible. If you cornered the member nations of the UN, you'd discover that they really only want to send troops to "keep the peace" in nations that can cover the bill in the years to come.
So I guess this just establishes that I'm truly not some hippy anti-war asshole. The extent that I believe war "isn't the answer" is restricted only to the observation that a sufficiently motivated enemy will kill you beyond the battlefield, and no amount of armed robots will address that problem.
There are problems in the times, but none of them are mine
I'm beginning to see the light.
The story of the Tower of Bab-el is another piece of evidence for your argument. The story is a subtle mockery of those silly city people, with their tall buildings and arrogant attitudes, and how God punishes them. In order to tell such a story, the contemporary audience must have been something other than city silly people, such as nomadic herders.
Another angle on this is that mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons was enough intimidation that it prevented nuclear war. In a similar fashion, fighting a war where your side suffers human losses while the enemy loses robots would be a humiliating, demoralizing experience - perhaps to an extent that fighting against such a miliatary would be a lost cause before the first round is fired.
There are pros and cons to that - it could be a very real deterrent to warfare, but it could just as easily alienate and silence people with a just cause for fighting. I doubt those people would shrug their shoulders and go home - they'd probably settle for guerilla warfare amongst the civilian population where an armed robot isn't a feasible option. Hm, not a far cry from terrorism.
I'm seriously not a hippy but the prevalence of "insurgent" style warfare these days is starting to convince me that war really isn't the answer - not because war is unhappy or unpleasant, but because people who are motivated enough to fight a war will express themselves despite being outright defeated in a war. If they want to kill, they'll kill regardless of your tanks or soldiers or barricades or armed robots. It's just too bad that nobody tosses tea into the harbor anymore.
(If you identify yourself as "in the IT field" and take exception to that, go ahead and reply - I swear upon my life that I couldn't care.)
Fields like scientific computing (simulations, serious number crunching, clusters), control systems (missle guidance, HVAC systems (for complicated stuff, not your apartment building), flight controls, engine controls), anything biochem or bioinformatics, and PhD level stuff in software engineering (new UI paradigms (I opine that "paradigm" is the appropriate word when talking about software engineering), interface designs, ubiquitous computing, etc.) is NOT what is typically referred to as the "IT field".
It's roughly the line separating commercial software and corporate tech support from R&D science. If you want to do the IT field work, give my regards to your fellow 3rd shift factory workers. If you want to work in hard science, I expect you'll have a job in the U.S. so long as you're not a total klutz.
Take as much math as you can stomach - it won't help you write code, but it'll help you design a missle guidance system. Code writing is going to be a cheap, cheap skill in the future. Knowing how a missle guidance system works is always going to be an expensive skill. As long as you make that distinction when you're young, you should be fine.
Along those lines, am I to believe that groups of people wouldn't burn the sound of a bunch of gunshots onto a CD, pop it in & punch play on their ludicrously loud car stereo system, stand on the opposite side of the street, and merrily shoot someone?
If the article addresses that, don't blame me - I can't be bothered with reading it.
Yes, as I plainly stated in concise English, making this interpretation is an abuse of the language under which the patent issued. Maybe one day we'll call a pair of pliars by the name "a thumb". Considering every human with a thumb to infringe on that patent is a juvenile exercise in making ourselves feel oh so clever.
There are already many such patents.
Cite me one or understand that I consider you to be talking out of your ass. You can view the entire patent database at www.uspto.gov. Keep in mind that case law regarding this issue has been rapidly evolving over the last 5 years - a claim that recites "a software method on a computer readable medium, the method comprising:" is no longer considered statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106, In re Sarker) and though they may be found on patents from a few years ago, such preambles would be immediately attacked in an infringement suit.
Yes it is an absurd result, because such patents are absurd in the first place.
And if such patents existed, your point would be poignant. Since you're already talking about a land of fairy tales and have demonstrated that you really aren't terribly informed about the patent system, you are the guy who posts on Slashdot about how awesome Microsoft Windows is. In the realm of patents, you are that guy. I have clearly stated at least twice that a patent for a computing machine configured to execute an algorithm is congruent as a pair of pliars which performs according to a physics equation. The pliars do not claim patent protection on the physics equation, nor does the "software patent" (your term) actually patent the abstract algorithm. If you are unable to make this connection then that, sir, is your failure and not mine.
Once the concept of using human brains for data storage in a Von Neumann fetch-decode-execute computing arrangement were as well known in the art as a floppy disk, and such a method is construed as functionally equivalent as a floppy disk (there is no advantage whatsoever to using human brains as a storage medium), and you concoct such a system which fetches, decodes, and executes the algorithm stored in a human brain, then maybe - MAYBE - you're not making a retarded argument. Oh yeah - AND this has to happen within 20 years of today, otherwise you couldn't possibly be talking about infringing any existing patent. Seriously, have some self respect - I strongly urge understanding your topic before trying to make a point. The "human brain" as a "computer readable medium" is offensive to anyone with any experience in the patent system.
Software itself is not patentable in the United States. See MPEP 2105 and 2106. I have led the horse to the river but I cannot force it to drink; that your opinion is based on fantasy rather than fact is your own responsibility.
At which point you have a machine which is configured to perform the algorithm. While you may disagree with this distinction, a tangible computer which executes an algorithm is no more a patent on abstract mathematics than a pair of pliars is a patent on physics.
I would like to point out that at some point medical scanning technology almost certainly *will* advance to the point where information stored in the human brain becomes machine readable. At that point KNOWING algorithm is then a patent violation, LOL. Whoops!
Apparently I spoke too soon about being informed about the patent system. Under no circumstances whatsoever would "knowing an algorithm" be an issue of patent infringement (there is no such thing as a patent violation, of course.) Patents are published for the specific purpose of allowing others in the field to learn from and improve upon the previous work known in the field. Patent infringement consists of using the unmodified teachings of an issue patent, not knowing the patent. Unless you have what is commonly referred to as a "computer" inside your skull, the situation you describe is best known as Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
And before you get all clever, there is no judge on this planet who would buy the argument that a patent issued in a computer related classification referring to a "computer" could be construed as a human brain. That is a completely undefendable position in a patent infringement suit.
Merely sticking a computer in an otherwise non-patentable plane is neither novel nor non-obvious. Merely saying "X with a computer" is rarely novel, and it's hard to imagine it ever qualifing as non-obvious.
The reason I refer to the F-117 is that the plane is entirely uncontrollable without a computer. Without the hardware/software system on that airframe, the entire plane is useless. It cannot be flown without computer control. The invention, in this case, is using a computer to achieve something which a human being (brain and all) cannot accomplish.
A brain is such a processor. Those instructions can always - in principal - be executed purely mentally.
Actually, with the preamble I offered, this would only be true in the most bizarre and absurd circumstances. If a patent is issued in a computer-related classification and the preamble refers to a stored program which causes a processor to execute, a judge would be incredibly deficient in his responsibilities to allow a litigant to interpret that as "a brain". For another example, a "database" could be anything from a brain to a filing cabinet to a MySQL daemon, however that definition refers strictly to a computer-implemented database server when a patent is issued from a database classification. While it's possible to argue otherwise, to do so would be as plausible as blaming McDonald's for making a customer fat.
I think we agree about a number of issues - you cannot get a patent on an idea, algorithm, or mathematical method. You also cannot get a patent on the concept of a lever, torque, or rotational velocity, however you can patent a pair of pliars. Likewise, you cannot patent the notion of a an encryption algorithm, however you can patent (with regard to 35 USC 101) a machine which performs an encryption method. This is no more a software patent than a pair of pliars are a physics patent.
In any event, it's still false that you can simply claim software "on a computer readable medium". The MPEP has an entire (unclear) section about doing exactly this. Even if we agree about the major issues but are splitting hairs over the details, I think it's a little irresponsible to sperad the idea on Slashdot that it's possible to get a software patent in the US by claiming the software is stored on a computer disk. That is completely false.
I have too many negatives in this sentence. It should read:
If the invention, as a whole, is software per se, then it should be considered nonstatutory under 35 USC 101.
If copyright is sufficient, then all code would be open sourced. If all code was open sourced, then you could see inside old software. If you could see inside old software, you could establish prior art. You can't establish prior art because you can't see inside old software because all software is not open source because (drumroll) copyright is insufficient.
Because seriously, if copyright was insufficient, what do you have to gain by keeping your product closed source? You run the risk of having someone patent your methods out from under you, but what do you gain? You save yourself the embarrassment of having your shitty code exposed - glory be to the wonderful technological innovations preserved here.
It seems offensively clear to me that it would take someone wholly submissive to the pedagoguery of their heroes - brilliant computer programmers but, at best, amateur lawyers - to believe that copyright is sufficient at protecting software implementation.
Seriously, how many copyrights would you need to protect the implementation of a simple piece of code?
When I want to know how to administer my websit: Ask Slashdot.
When I want to know which free software to use: Ask Slashdot.
When I want to learn which hardware works with linux: Ask Slashdot.
When I want to learn how to impress the ladies: Slashdot hasn't got a clue.
When I want legal advice: Slashdot hasn't got a clue.
For all the "wisdom" people narcissistically espouse around here, precious few seem wise enough to stick to topics they know.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or ANY NEW AND USEFUL IMPROVEMENT THEREOF, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Emphasis subtley added.
I know it's fun to form a mob and hate stuff because our heroes hate it, but sometimes heroes turn out to be regular people when they're out of their element. I don't hear Linus giving advice on vascular surgery or auto mechanics, but everyone is so keen to hear what he thinks about legal issues. It's funny, I guess I must have been sick on the days when he showed up to law school.
The public may submit prior art.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2203.html
The brief paragraph he gives about "prior art" for "ludicrous" patents indicates to me that he has never had an adversarial relationship with a patent attorney.
So, as much as you have asked for input, there's mine. The guy's heart is probably in the right place, but I seriously think he's out of his element.
This is false at a wholesale level.
If the claims mention some patentable subject matter, and the invention as a whole is patentable subject matter (you are correct in that) then the application passes the statutory subject matter requirement of 35 USC 101 (In re Sarkar). There are other requirements of 35 USC 101, plus 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 which must be satisfied. If you have the best compression algorithm in the world, but you claim it without producing a tangible result although "stored on a computer readable medium", you will be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Now you get patents on a mathematical equation stored on any computer readable media.
This is entirely false. While case law may have permitted this a few years ago, a claim with such a preamble is an immediate rejection under 35 USC 101 these days.
The math is new and non-obvious, the floppy disk is a patentable physical object, and "as a whole" they satisfy all three criteria for a patent. Groan.
Again, this is entirely false. If the invention, as a whole, is software per se, then it should not be considered nonstatutory under 35 USC 101. If you have an example of such a patent being issued in years past under the case law of years past, good luck enforcing today with today's case law. Many at Slashdot don't have the slightest inkling how the concept of case law works in practice. I'm not saying you have this problem, but if you do understand how case law works, I suspect you share my frustration and understand why I'd put a caveat on comments about it.
The fine line, and I insist it is a FINE line, is that systems or methods which actually interact tangibly with computer hardware are considered patentable. This enables the computer flight control system of the F-117A stealth fighter to be a patentable invention - and why not? It clearly is a novel and unobvious use of computers, the plane couldn't fly without the computers, and the invention has undoubtedly spun off into other advances in technology. The flip side is that you can claim "a stored program which causes a processor to execute a method wherein..." but in doing so, you ARE in fact limiting the scope of the claims to a computer-implemented invention rather than a disembodied, abstract invention.
And my standard summary: There are volumes of factually incorrect information about the US patent system on Slashdot. Maybe the community (moderators, posters, lurkers) should focus more effort on personal information gathering and opinion forming rather than reading what a few pedagogues have written and reiterating their talking points. Just a suggestion. (I'm not suggesting that you, to whom I reply, suffers this need - but this is my standard summary topic.)
+1 mischief
Wow I'm so informed by your post. Tell me about those floppy disks that are really made from hard plastic! They are not teh floppy at all! LOL!
Alright, but what else is new? Water is wet? People organize to seize power rather than to do good deeds?
I also worked at a manufacturing plant in Michigan that was unionized in the 1970s, split from their union, and the union wanted back in while I was there in the late 1990s/early 2000s. They had representatives, spread pamphlets, shook hands, spread the good word of how excellent it would be with a union. They pretty much got ridiculed off the property by the laborers - in Michigan. The workers enjoy an excellent seniority system, profit sharing, an incredibly safety conscious workplace, a positive relationship with management, and it's shocking what it takes to get fired.
Unions aren't much different from any other power grab in history. They just happen to directly affect the livelihood of millions of people (as does management), while the Freemasons are a little antiquated.
Virginia (and certainly some others) are "Right to Work" states where you cannot be forced to join a union in order to obtain employment, cannot be forced to pay union dues, union bargaining still protects you, however the union can require you pay dues to vote.
It is illegal to not pay them overtime. Somehow computer programmers got exempted from this rule. I see this as an issue. I would prefer to fix the laws and enforce the ones we have than to force unions on the workers.
I'm no expert on labor laws, but I believe this is an oversimplification. The issue here is voluntary overtime - ideally this is when you want to get ahead or make up for your long lunches. If the worker charged for this overtime and only produced a standard 40 hour amount of work, he is inefficient or manages time poorly. In an economy where lots of workers are eager to take his job, what incentive does the company have for discouraging volunteer overtime? It is a backdoor to overtime-by-intimidation, but I really can't conceive of a good market-implemented decision.
An oversupply of labor will always be an oversupply of labor. I have a BS in mathematics and a BS in computer science and now I work in law - couldn't be happier. It sucks to be somebody, but not me.
That's a very informative comment. (I can't be bothered with reading this article about something I don't and won't own.) The summary was very uninformative in saying that storage is addressed in 512 byte blocks, oh the horror!
This problem seems pretty clearly one of software implementation rather than a file system flaw - of course this is Slashdot. Thanks for the information, though.
Oh, I think they have plenty of rational grounding for them, but there simply wasn't an appealling reason for the authors to include a balanced discussion of the pros and cons for their societal laws 1500 or 2000 years ago. I also doubt very much that the authors were planning ahead for the changes in society that might happen over the next 2000 years.
If we had a time machine and asked these guys why sex out of wedlock is such a big problem, I think you'd find that women, who were uneducated, denied civil rights (property, leadership roles, etc.), unable to support themselves independently (through no fault of their own, of course) became a burden on the entire community if they were pregnant outside of marriage. Nobody wanted to marry the handled goods, so there wasn't a path to solvency for those women. I'd imagine that to a young unmarried woman, becoming pregnant was a death sentence either way - by starvation or by criminal punishment.
However, if women in those days were educated, independent, able to support themselves, and they had birth control, I strongly doubt that adultry or sex out of wedlock would have carried such a stiff penalty. The problem simply would not have represented such a crisis for the ancient community. Of course, I've got nothing buy hypothesis, but it makes sense across the board. The disappointing thing is when people try to take these moral judgements that were originally based on rational and pragmatic decisions about ancient culture and insist that they must be applied to the letter on a foreign culture. Of course, they're primarily interested in keeping the homosexuals down - they don't force their wives to live in remote huts when they menstruate to protect men from the innate uncleanliness of women. It's all pick and choose, I guess.
Public policy is made according to money, not common sense. As long as you resist this truth, you will find yourself at odds with the universe. Old people vote and old people have AARP and other organizations. Old people having accidents produces an economy for medical services, lawyers, and auto mechanics to name just a few. Public policy is made according to money, not common sense.
One corrected word: thoughtcrime
You are correct. thanks.