Here's a bit about Fat line. I'm not CS either, just a story that struck me as interesting.
I think we're talking at cross purposes regarding application. I regard, for example, CFD as applied science (not a knock-down, I worked in that field myself). I don't recall patents on things like the use of Guass' Theorem to help approximate differential systems by algebraic systems. But it worries me that we may see that kind of patent in future years.
I think that perhaps engineers are maligned scientists.
I'm not convinced by the applicability distinction. Much of science involves the application of abstract notions to practical efforts in novel ways. Can I patent 'The use of complex numbers in the analysis of electric circuits subject to oscillating potentials'? I suspect not.
The real distinction between engineering and science is practical - the former is often used to make products which are sold, and so comes with an interest group with substantial influence on society.
Perhaps the question should be: why is classical engineering different from classical mathematics or science - which aren't generally patentable.
On a practical level, the entry costs to practice software engineering can be quite low compared to, say, biotech. This law restricts otherwise (potentially) decent opportunities in the less-developed countries of the EU
The FBI seeks to appoint a senior AOL linguist. The successful candidate will form a 1337 team able to translate AOL to American English in real-time as part of a stimulating new FBI initiative...
Both conspiracy theories are too simple. Clearly, IBM are paying SCO, hoping that the whole case will make them look the like the friend of free speech as opposed to a corporate dinosaur with a patent folio the size of Neptune (and to distract attention from their invlovment in alien abductions). Microsoft are funding ESR to remind other corporate dinosuars that the whole OSS movement is about hippies. With guns
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a bit about Fat line. I'm not CS either, just a story that struck me as interesting.
I think we're talking at cross purposes regarding application. I regard, for example, CFD as applied science (not a knock-down, I worked in that field myself). I don't recall patents on things like the use of Guass' Theorem to help approximate differential systems by algebraic systems. But it worries me that we may see that kind of patent in future years.
I think that perhaps engineers are maligned scientists.
I'm not convinced by the applicability distinction. Much of science involves the application of abstract notions to practical efforts in novel ways. Can I patent 'The use of complex numbers in the analysis of electric circuits subject to oscillating potentials'? I suspect not. The real distinction between engineering and science is practical - the former is often used to make products which are sold, and so comes with an interest group with substantial influence on society.
Perhaps the question should be: why is classical engineering different from classical mathematics or science - which aren't generally patentable. On a practical level, the entry costs to practice software engineering can be quite low compared to, say, biotech. This law restricts otherwise (potentially) decent opportunities in the less-developed countries of the EU
The FBI seeks to appoint a senior AOL linguist. The successful candidate will form a 1337 team able to translate AOL to American English in real-time as part of a stimulating new FBI initiative...
Both conspiracy theories are too simple. Clearly, IBM are paying SCO, hoping that the whole case will make them look the like the friend of free speech as opposed to a corporate dinosaur with a patent folio the size of Neptune (and to distract attention from their invlovment in alien abductions). Microsoft are funding ESR to remind other corporate dinosuars that the whole OSS movement is about hippies. With guns