This is no better than American Patroitism. As an American, let me say that we are NOT the best country in the world, and that any time we say that we are, we sound as silly as the russians here.
A country is made of people. To state that your country is not the best is to state that the people in the country are surpassed in excellence by another country's. I am very offended by your statement.
Let me be the first to ask you, what country is the best? It is people like you who make many Americans sick; this liberal "America is the root of evil" thinking is so absurd. One would expect another to want to live in the best place; to say you are living somewhere other than the best place is to say you are settling for something less than it the best. I can't understand why anyone would want to settle.
Let me be the one to say I believe my country, the United States of America, is the best. I have lived abroad, and found myself to miss America. People in other countries may think their country is the best, and I respect that belief. However, I am not going to go for international brownie points by saying my country is not the best or anything like that. Ask a Brit what the best country in the world is, and they'll say theirs. Ask a Canadian, same thing. A Chinese? The same thing. But ask an American, and they'll piss and moan about how their country is evil and harming the world. It drives me crazy.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: any time an American states so outright that he believes his country is not the best, he loses a little respect from fellow Americans and other citizens of this great planet.
Yes, that was my zealous, math-loving side stating that all expressions were statements of truth.
I state that all math that software is based on is universal. This describes lambda calculus, which can be used to trivially reduce all software to pure mathematics.
Here. Read this and then tell me software is not reducible to lambda calculus, a branch of pure mathematics.
He should patent the non-software version. If someone else implements a non-software version, they are infringing on his patent. If they implement a software version, they are coming up with another method of performing the same task. Without the software, his idea is still patentable. If he puts his idea into software for ease of description, he is giving away, in my opinion, a non-patentable way of implementing his technology. His fault.
Someone else has done a nice job of explaining that software algorithms are a branch of mathematics via lambda calculus.
My belief that they should not be patentable notwithstanding, 14 years in software is the equivalent of at least a hundred years in other areas. Even if I were to admit patents on software should exist, they still should not exist for more than two or three years (a generation in software design).
If you patent something, that means you came up with it first (otherwise it would not be patentable by you). So, assume you come up with it but don't patent it. Someone else sues you for it later on down the road. You whip out your code that you implemented prior to them coming up with the idea, and you win. You don't have to patent anything in software because you can always demonstrate prior art if you would have been the one to receive the patent.
What does E=MC^2 do? what monetary gain did Albert stand to gain from that?
Well, relativity is used every day by scientists all around the globe for many things, including for NASA's space flights, for research on stars and black holes, and for pretty much anything involving travel of bodies outside of our planet. So, Einstein would have stood to gain a huge amount of money from licensing.
Now if Google couldn't patent thier software? We wouldn't know about them becuase Yahoo or MSN or Alta Vista would have stolen thier software and copied it as thier own
No, because that would be plagiarism and copyright infringement, and probably violation of non-disclosure agreements by Google employees (which falls under contract law, not patent law). Algorithms are not automatically known unless Google explains them (which they have). So, if patents didn't exist, their algorithm would be known only by leaks in the company (violations of contract by employees), by explanation by Google (which, because patents don't exist in my hypothetical world would mean Google wanted people to have free use of it), or by breaking into Google and stealing the hardware/copying their software. Both of these are crimes without requiring software patents. One is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
How would you prevent people from benifiting from others work?
Simple, don't tell other people how your software is implemented; if they come up with it independently, then good for them. Software patents really only protect against other people independently coming up with the same idea. Thus, software patents harm innovation. If you can come up with some other protection provided by software patents that I haven't already shown to be a non-true benefit, please speak up. But I believe I've shown how they don't benefit society at all (which is, of course, whom patents are supposed to benefit).
So it is niether plain nor simple. I believe I have just shown how it is plain and simple. Please, if it is more complex, respond with examples I have not addressed, and I will address those. But, at the end of the argument, I assure you that I will have defeated every argument that is in favor of software patents. They are morally inconsistent with the purpose of patents in general, and only harm innovation. Period. Any side-benefits derived from software patents are either detrimental to society, or can be derived via some laws already in existance.
IP is property and peopel have a right to protect thier property.
Which is making the statement that people have a right to patent things like E = mc^2, or other expressions. Since you didn't like that, how about I ask what if scientists had patented their ideas on quantum mechanics?
However, you were making the case that the game itself is broken, and I agree. Still, I do not change my opinion that, just because the system is broken, playing the game should not be excused.
So without that "still", it made less sense. I apologize for the unclearness. I just merely was trying to say that playing the game is as bad as making the game.
But you can't patent mathematical expressions outside of software, and that was my point; all software can be trivially reduced to mathematical expression (in lambda calculus, as another slashdotter pointed out), so I don't understand the purpose of software patents.
However, you were making the case that the game itself is broken, and I agree. I do not change my opinion that, just because the system is broken, playing the game should not be excused. If your competitors come up with an algorithm independently of you, how is making them pay you license fees benefitting society? Patents in general are meant to provide for scientific advancement, and software patents do not; they block people from independently coming up with anything, for fear of implementing something that has already been patented. Code can be copyrighted, but algorithms should not be patentable.
If I am some company, like Google, and I pay people money to spend time thinking up algorithms, it's only fair that I get to use them exclusively for a while.
No, when you apply for patent, you must reveal your algorithm. If you don't apply for patent, the only people who know what your algorithm is are the people who have access to your code. Thus there is no reason to patent an algorithm. If I come up with the same algorithm independently (because obviously I did not see what your algorithm was), I should not have to pay you.
You raise a good point about chemistry, and I'll admit something: I am still young and have not decided what I believe about a great many things, but I think patents are wrong as of now. For something like a medicine company, I think the medicines should not be patented; they should be copyrighted the same way books, manuals, and paintings are. This would keep people from reverse engineering the pill and copying it (because that is copyright infringement) while at the same time allowing someone to independently come up with the same thing. I am still open to many arguments, but software patents is something I have firmly decided upon; I believe they do not benefit society, which, after all, is what patents are supposed to do. Code can be copyrighted, algorithms should not be patented.
You know one of the few ways the little guy can be protected from the big guy.
I don't know where you live, but it hasn't been that way in the states for years, and if you're a European, you'll find out soon enough when software patents are finally approved by the EU.
And I'm not going to go into my beliefs about patents in general, but software patents are patents on mathematical algorithms. You know, like E = mc^2, the Pythagorean theorem, calculus. What if these things had been patented? Think about it. Patents on software and math are detrimental to society, plain and simple.
See another post of mine on why what you are saying makes zero mathematical sense. By taking the $1 salary, the only way they could be saving money, is if, before taxes otherwise, their salary was under two dollars. They are not doing this for tax reasons, unless they literally are retarded. This is either to save the company money, or (more likely) a stunt to evoke an emotional response of some sort in their employees, customers, or general folk.
If it was a tax trick, they'd have to be retarded. Here's a mathematical explanation:
Suppose they make salary $Y Suppose tax is at 35%, which is a fair number to choose. At $1, you pay no taxes in the US. So let's see how little they would have to make, to be actually saving money by taking a $1/yr salary:
$1 > $Y*(100-35)/100 $100 > $Y(100-35) 100 > 65Y 100/65 > Y ~1.54 > Y So yes, you guessed it! Their salary would have to be somewhere around 1 dollar and 54 cents to be saving money by doing this!!!
I'm sorry, it's doing evil. How can you patent a mathematical expression? That's like patenting a statement of truth! I outright denounce any patenting of mathematical expressions, which includes, but is not limited to, encryption methods and software. You shouldn't be able to patent a philosophical expression. What if "I think therefore I am" had been patented by Descartes?
In case you didn't notice, you spelled "utterly" "uttery", so I attempted to find a midway point and create some humor. I assure you, I know how to spell "udder", as I am from a farm in Texas;)
iOpener is the only one that worked properly for me. Hymn failed on one of my five iTMS tracks. iOpener will seamlessly decrypt all your songs in the iTunes library, and, if running at the time of a new music purchase, will decrypt the files as they are downloaded. I highly recommend it.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple didn't exist, it would be necessary for Microsoft to invent it.
This is no better than American Patroitism. As an American, let me say that we are NOT the best country in the world, and that any time we say that we are, we sound as silly as the russians here.
A country is made of people. To state that your country is not the best is to state that the people in the country are surpassed in excellence by another country's. I am very offended by your statement.
Let me be the first to ask you, what country is the best? It is people like you who make many Americans sick; this liberal "America is the root of evil" thinking is so absurd. One would expect another to want to live in the best place; to say you are living somewhere other than the best place is to say you are settling for something less than it the best. I can't understand why anyone would want to settle.
Let me be the one to say I believe my country, the United States of America, is the best. I have lived abroad, and found myself to miss America. People in other countries may think their country is the best, and I respect that belief. However, I am not going to go for international brownie points by saying my country is not the best or anything like that. Ask a Brit what the best country in the world is, and they'll say theirs. Ask a Canadian, same thing. A Chinese? The same thing. But ask an American, and they'll piss and moan about how their country is evil and harming the world. It drives me crazy.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: any time an American states so outright that he believes his country is not the best, he loses a little respect from fellow Americans and other citizens of this great planet.
Yes, that was my zealous, math-loving side stating that all expressions were statements of truth.
I state that all math that software is based on is universal. This describes lambda calculus, which can be used to trivially reduce all software to pure mathematics.
Here. Read this and then tell me software is not reducible to lambda calculus, a branch of pure mathematics.
He should patent the non-software version. If someone else implements a non-software version, they are infringing on his patent. If they implement a software version, they are coming up with another method of performing the same task. Without the software, his idea is still patentable. If he puts his idea into software for ease of description, he is giving away, in my opinion, a non-patentable way of implementing his technology. His fault.
Someone else has done a nice job of explaining that software algorithms are a branch of mathematics via lambda calculus.
My belief that they should not be patentable notwithstanding, 14 years in software is the equivalent of at least a hundred years in other areas. Even if I were to admit patents on software should exist, they still should not exist for more than two or three years (a generation in software design).
If you patent something, that means you came up with it first (otherwise it would not be patentable by you). So, assume you come up with it but don't patent it. Someone else sues you for it later on down the road. You whip out your code that you implemented prior to them coming up with the idea, and you win. You don't have to patent anything in software because you can always demonstrate prior art if you would have been the one to receive the patent.
What does E=MC^2 do? what monetary gain did Albert stand to gain from that?
Well, relativity is used every day by scientists all around the globe for many things, including for NASA's space flights, for research on stars and black holes, and for pretty much anything involving travel of bodies outside of our planet. So, Einstein would have stood to gain a huge amount of money from licensing.
Now if Google couldn't patent thier software? We wouldn't know about them becuase Yahoo or MSN or Alta Vista would have stolen thier software and copied it as thier own
No, because that would be plagiarism and copyright infringement, and probably violation of non-disclosure agreements by Google employees (which falls under contract law, not patent law). Algorithms are not automatically known unless Google explains them (which they have). So, if patents didn't exist, their algorithm would be known only by leaks in the company (violations of contract by employees), by explanation by Google (which, because patents don't exist in my hypothetical world would mean Google wanted people to have free use of it), or by breaking into Google and stealing the hardware/copying their software. Both of these are crimes without requiring software patents. One is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
How would you prevent people from benifiting from others work?
Simple, don't tell other people how your software is implemented; if they come up with it independently, then good for them. Software patents really only protect against other people independently coming up with the same idea. Thus, software patents harm innovation. If you can come up with some other protection provided by software patents that I haven't already shown to be a non-true benefit, please speak up. But I believe I've shown how they don't benefit society at all (which is, of course, whom patents are supposed to benefit).
So it is niether plain nor simple.
I believe I have just shown how it is plain and simple. Please, if it is more complex, respond with examples I have not addressed, and I will address those. But, at the end of the argument, I assure you that I will have defeated every argument that is in favor of software patents. They are morally inconsistent with the purpose of patents in general, and only harm innovation. Period. Any side-benefits derived from software patents are either detrimental to society, or can be derived via some laws already in existance.
IP is property and peopel have a right to protect thier property.
Which is making the statement that people have a right to patent things like E = mc^2, or other expressions. Since you didn't like that, how about I ask what if scientists had patented their ideas on quantum mechanics?
However, you were making the case that the game itself is broken, and I agree. Still, I do not change my opinion that, just because the system is broken, playing the game should not be excused.
So without that "still", it made less sense. I apologize for the unclearness. I just merely was trying to say that playing the game is as bad as making the game.
But you can't patent mathematical expressions outside of software, and that was my point; all software can be trivially reduced to mathematical expression (in lambda calculus, as another slashdotter pointed out), so I don't understand the purpose of software patents.
However, you were making the case that the game itself is broken, and I agree. I do not change my opinion that, just because the system is broken, playing the game should not be excused. If your competitors come up with an algorithm independently of you, how is making them pay you license fees benefitting society? Patents in general are meant to provide for scientific advancement, and software patents do not; they block people from independently coming up with anything, for fear of implementing something that has already been patented. Code can be copyrighted, but algorithms should not be patentable.
If I am some company, like Google, and I pay people money to spend time thinking up algorithms, it's only fair that I get to use them exclusively for a while.
No, when you apply for patent, you must reveal your algorithm. If you don't apply for patent, the only people who know what your algorithm is are the people who have access to your code. Thus there is no reason to patent an algorithm. If I come up with the same algorithm independently (because obviously I did not see what your algorithm was), I should not have to pay you.
You raise a good point about chemistry, and I'll admit something: I am still young and have not decided what I believe about a great many things, but I think patents are wrong as of now. For something like a medicine company, I think the medicines should not be patented; they should be copyrighted the same way books, manuals, and paintings are. This would keep people from reverse engineering the pill and copying it (because that is copyright infringement) while at the same time allowing someone to independently come up with the same thing. I am still open to many arguments, but software patents is something I have firmly decided upon; I believe they do not benefit society, which, after all, is what patents are supposed to do. Code can be copyrighted, algorithms should not be patented.
You know one of the few ways the little guy can be protected from the big guy.
I don't know where you live, but it hasn't been that way in the states for years, and if you're a European, you'll find out soon enough when software patents are finally approved by the EU.
And I'm not going to go into my beliefs about patents in general, but software patents are patents on mathematical algorithms. You know, like E = mc^2, the Pythagorean theorem, calculus. What if these things had been patented? Think about it. Patents on software and math are detrimental to society, plain and simple.
See another post of mine on why what you are saying makes zero mathematical sense. By taking the $1 salary, the only way they could be saving money, is if, before taxes otherwise, their salary was under two dollars. They are not doing this for tax reasons, unless they literally are retarded. This is either to save the company money, or (more likely) a stunt to evoke an emotional response of some sort in their employees, customers, or general folk.
This is nothing but a tax trick
If it was a tax trick, they'd have to be retarded. Here's a mathematical explanation:
Suppose they make salary $Y
Suppose tax is at 35%, which is a fair number to choose.
At $1, you pay no taxes in the US. So let's see how little they would have to make, to be actually saving money by taking a $1/yr salary:
$1 > $Y*(100-35)/100
$100 > $Y(100-35)
100 > 65Y
100/65 > Y
~1.54 > Y
So yes, you guessed it! Their salary would have to be somewhere around 1 dollar and 54 cents to be saving money by doing this!!!
I'm sorry, it's doing evil. How can you patent a mathematical expression? That's like patenting a statement of truth! I outright denounce any patenting of mathematical expressions, which includes, but is not limited to, encryption methods and software. You shouldn't be able to patent a philosophical expression. What if "I think therefore I am" had been patented by Descartes?
You just made me think of mung. You have to scroll down to read the definition. Warning: you may vomit upon reading.
I think it's really meant to replace Oola, the Twi'lek dancer who gets her shit ruined by a rancor in Jedi.
But will Amidala come out naked and covered in hot grits? That's all I want to know!
The programmer, of course. Duh. Who else would you sue? The project is not a corporation, so you don't sue the company.
That link is 404ed.
No, saying you know how to spell "udder" because you're from a farm in Texas is like saying you know how to spell "violin" because you make them.
Or did you not know what "udder" meant?
In case you didn't notice, you spelled "utterly" "uttery", so I attempted to find a midway point and create some humor. I assure you, I know how to spell "udder", as I am from a farm in Texas ;)
It's a market that is uttery ripe for the plucking.
That sure would be mooooving a lot of data!
Since the article he wrote was released today
I promise you that I read it two days ago. So, it must have come out earlier than just today.
Can you please explain that Penny Arcade? I wasn't a reader until yesterday, as a matter of fact; is that a true story, who is Kara, etc.?
iOpener is the only one that worked properly for me. Hymn failed on one of my five iTMS tracks. iOpener will seamlessly decrypt all your songs in the iTunes library, and, if running at the time of a new music purchase, will decrypt the files as they are downloaded. I highly recommend it.