It'd have to be computationally equivalent to a Turing machine
There is no physical device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. A modern conventional computer is a finite state automata. The infinitely-long tape of a turing machine makes it physically unrealizable.
It is a proved fact that there are arbitrarily large gaps in the prime sequence (i.e. infinitely large gaps).
Yes and no. "Arbitrarily large" is not the same thing as "infinitely large". If there were an infinitely large gap, there couldn't be a subsequent prime.
Maybe I am going to fast for you, and if so, I apologize
No, you're not going "to [sic] fast", but thanks for asking.
By aligned I am talking about the percentages.
I stand by my earlier statement. If you think the popular and electoral votes were only "aligned" in the one election in recent years in which they pointed to different candidates, then your definition is useless.
As you can see, the Electoral votes have not aligned with the popular votes since at least 1980. It wasn't until 2000 that the EVotes aligned with the Pop votes, however they were still of and won the election for Bush.
So, what you're saying is, the only time in recent memory that the popular vote was "aligned" with the electoral vote, was also the only time in recent memory that the popular vote and electoral vote were won by different candidates. Your definition of "aligned" is, to say the least, interesting.
Mathematically, the other semi-close states don't matter. The winner of Ohio will win the election because it will put that candidate over the 270 electoral votes needed, regardless of what the other states do.
People differ in opinion as to when it becomes a "person" in the true sense of the word. Some say conception. Some say birth. Each of those two positions is ridiculous. It's somewhere in between, and it's fuzzy at best.
If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
One could say the same thing about a woman who successfully fends off a would-be rapist.
This is not a troll, I'm just asking. What's funny about the parent? Seriously, it just restates the obvious observation. I don't know why this deserves (Score:3,Funny), let alone (Score:5,Funny). Am I missing something here?
Fullerenes conduct electricity, so its refractive index is most likely negative.
Pardon my ignorance, but I've got two questions:
1) Why is there a relationship between conductivity and index of refraction?
2) Index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in the material. As a result, you always have a number greater than 1. What does a negative I-of-R mean physically? The speed of light in the material would have to be negative? Would it reflect the beam rather than refract it?
Patent law is not just about the value that some monopoly has, but also whether the positive effects of granting such monopolies actually stimulates the sector in which they are granted, considering the inherent downsides of granting monopolies.
When was the last time an otherwise-valid patent was rejected because the economic sector to which it pertained was doing just fine at the moment and didn't need any further stimulation?
The effort to create working code is also protected by copyright (and not in any way by patent law, for that matter). You're still describing things in code, you're in effect translating.
Not relevant. I agree that the code itself should be copyrightable. That holds true even if the code doesn't do anything unique or novel or non-obvious. But there are novel non-obvious algorithmic solutions to problems that take a substantial amount of work to devise, before a single line of code is written, and copyrighting one particular source-code embodiment doesn't protect the investment in devising the algorithm.
A computer program is not a device, it's basically equivalent to a technical instruction manual
Semantics. A computer program may or may not be a device. An algorithm encoded in a computer program may or may not be a device. And whether or not you categorize something as a "device" shouldn't determine whether or not it is an "invention".
The description is indeed the only thing that is protected by copyright, that's how copyright is designed
Agreed, and I'm not suggesting that anything other than the description receive copyright protection. I'm suggesting that the underlying method being described is deserving of a different kind of protection.
No, I do not think that all new things done on a computer have to be per definition monopolizable.
Agreed. I can write a shoot-em-up computer game that doesn't do anything particularly novel or non-obvious, and therefore doesn't warrant a patent, but the code should still be protected by copyright. The patentability rests in the fact that something solves a difficult problem in a way that is novel and non-obvious to someone skilled in the art.
However, conversely, I do not think that if some (new) thing is not patentable (for example a faster fourier transform), that it should become patentable if you say it's done by a computer
I agree completely. I'm not sure why you thought I would be disputing this.
Because of the previously mentioned economic studies (the most important argument, which you did not address)
See my first paragraph above.
Because monopolies on mathematical algorithms are generally considered too broad,
Well, any patent application can be too broad. That can be fixed.
I find it hypocrite to only allow patents on it if one says it's done by a computer, if you at the same time keep claiming such achievements are not patentable. The patent is not granted because you were such a genius to use a computer to calculate that stuff.
Again, I agree.
If you really think mathematical achievements and/or business methods should be patentable, then please say so.
I never said anything about business methods. And mathematical achievements is too vague. I'm talking about complex novel non-obvious algorithms, not the discovery of basic truths like the Pythagorean Theorm.
And if you think they should be patentable, then show convincingly how this patentability will increase wealth in the sectors these patents apply to, otherwise it makes no sense to grant such patents.
The same way a mechanical process can increase wealth: by being the sole supplier of any embodiment of that process. The patent I originally cited is one that has been licensed, thereby demonstrating its economic value.
You seem to be arguing that it should be possible to get a monopol
The problem is that software is not an invention. It is a calculation.
1) You unjustifiably trivialize the complexity, novelty, and non-obviousness of some valuable computer algorithms by referring to them as "calculations". Even if technically correct, it is somewhat misleading to give the impression that we are talking about a mere linear sequence of arithmetic operations, like computing the tax on a restaurant bill. 2)I don't accept your premise that the terms "calculation" and "invention" are mutually exclusive.
I then in fact carry out that short patent. Did I violate that patent? Are you seriously suggesting that pure thought can/should be against the law?
First, it isn't "pure thought" unless you're not using the results in a commercial manner. Second, manufacture of a patented device often consists of pressing some metal into a particular shape and fastening a few pieces with nuts and bolts. Should mundane activities like this be against the law?
And if not, there's nothing patentable or inventive in the simple and obvious step of using an ordinary computer simply to speed up that calculation.
I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that a method or algorithm for solving some difficult problem shouldn't be patentable merely by virtue of the fact that you're doing it on a computer. It's the non-obviousness and novelty of the approach that warrants protection.
we had the Mental Steps doctrin which states you cannot get a patent for mental steps, that thoughts and calculations are not inventions and not patentable.
And then people realized that the bottom line is that we're trying to protect the return on investment of intellectual labor performed for the sake of real problem solving, and that the form of the final embodiment of the solution is completely irrelevant.
Are patents necessary to get enough investments in the IT-sector?
The IT sector as a whole? Probably not, but that's like asking whether patents are necessary to get enough investments in manufacturing. The point is that there may be particular endeavors in IT whose value may be dependent on being able to be the sole supplier of the technology for a while after it is developed.
In software, the description is the implementation (since software is nothing but a description of something).
I strongly disagree. I can describe an algorithm in English, and through the use of visual aids, but further effort must be expended to create working code, just like a blueprint requires further effort to create a working device.
Whether or not what you describe is patentable, should be entirely independent from how you describe it
You're making my point for me here. Protecting only the implementation through copyright should be independent of protecting the method through patent.
Yet, an awful lot of unpatentable stuff suddenly becomes patentable if you say it's done by a computer.
Agreed. Something shouldn't simply become patentable by virtue of doing it on a computer. But in cases where the thing being patented is not only being done on a computer, but also being done for the very first time, whether a computer happens to be involved or not, should be protectable.
I think the grandparent poster is rather confused.
Possibly, but I don't think so:).
A "law" is not just something that we have observed to be true and then taken for true (i.e. taken to be an axiom).
I did say "observed to be true", but I didn't say "taken for true" or "taken to be an axiom". I agree with you that laws are not axioms. Axioms fall within the domain of philosophy, logic, and mathematics. They are not part of the natural sciences. (Well, that might not be *completely* true. One might accept the internal consistency of the universe to be an axiom: an event cannot be construed to both have occurred and not occurred. But I digress...)
Rather, "law" is a term that has just been loosely applied,
I think I kind of implied that, by referring to the law of gravity as "what goes up must come down", and invoking Ohm's law that doesn't hold for everything, but only for devices where resistance is cconstant.
both pieces of scientific knowledge are not to be considered infallilble or not open to scrutiny. [...] laws are never "proven true", either
Very nice, but there's a small problem, a common misconception actually. You imply that special relativity does not handle acceleration. That's not true. Problems involving accelerated frames can be handled just fine with a combination of special relativity and calculus. The only time you need general relativity is in problems where space-time is not flat, i.e. in the presence of strong gravitational fields. And no, accelerated frames are not indistinguishable from being in a gravitational field. They are only *locally* indistinguishable, and the word *locally* is the key here. Unless large masses are involved, SR is sufficient.
Because the kind of hard work and knowledge and investigation and thought that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in matter-space is exactly the kind that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in information-space. One type of problem solving shouldn't be protected more than the other simply because you need bolts and motors and lubricant to implement it.
If they're to protect only an implementation of an idea, as they say they are,
They do not exist merely to protect an implemention of an idea. They protect the technique that the implementation embodies.
And if they're protecting more than that, then they shouldn't be!
Why not? Should Xerox not have been granted a patent on the xerographic photocopy process, but rather only a copyright on their machine's manufacturing blueprints?
No. Scientific theories don't get promoted to laws. Laws are observations of things that appear to hold true. For example, the law of gravity ("what goes up, must come down"), Snell's Law, Ohm's Law, the Law of conservation of Mass/Energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. A theory is an *explanation* that models some observed phenomena and which has the power to predict other phenomena. Theories are either falsified (i.e. proven wrong), or are confirmed (i.e. shown to be consistent with some new observation.) Theories are never proven true; rather, they are simply confirmed to a greater and greater degree. No matter how well a theory is confirmed, it can always be falsified by a new experiment testing some as-yet-untested prediction. In this case, the theory is either revised to account for the new observation, or it is simply discarded.
Slashdot Mirror
So, this means AOL customers might have to switch to RoadRunner?
It'd have to be computationally equivalent to a Turing machine
There is no physical device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. A modern conventional computer is a finite state automata. The infinitely-long tape of a turing machine makes it physically unrealizable.
he was intimating that he helped foster the environment where the internet could flourish. Unfortunatly, this is probably not true either
Wrong. The two men who, more than anyone else, *can* claim to have invented the internet, back up Al Gore on this one.
It is a proved fact that there are arbitrarily large gaps in the prime sequence (i.e. infinitely large gaps).
Yes and no. "Arbitrarily large" is not the same thing as "infinitely large". If there were an infinitely large gap, there couldn't be a subsequent prime.
There are enough of them, for example, that the infinite sum of their reciprocals diverges.
Interesting. I'm not challenging the claim, but can you point us to the proof?
Maybe I am going to fast for you, and if so, I apologize
No, you're not going "to [sic] fast", but thanks for asking.
By aligned I am talking about the percentages.
I stand by my earlier statement. If you think the popular and electoral votes were only "aligned" in the one election in recent years in which they pointed to different candidates, then your definition is useless.
As you can see, the Electoral votes have not aligned with the popular votes since at least 1980. It wasn't until 2000 that the EVotes aligned with the Pop votes, however they were still of and won the election for Bush.
So, what you're saying is, the only time in recent memory that the popular vote was "aligned" with the electoral vote, was also the only time in recent memory that the popular vote and electoral vote were won by different candidates. Your definition of "aligned" is, to say the least, interesting.
However this is the first Presidentail election since 1988 where the Electoral votes aligned with the popular votes.
Please tell us all who won the popular vote in 92 and 96.
Mathematically, the other semi-close states don't matter. The winner of Ohio will win the election because it will put that candidate over the 270 electoral votes needed, regardless of what the other states do.
People differ in opinion as to when it becomes a "person" in the true sense of the word. Some say conception. Some say birth. Each of those two positions is ridiculous. It's somewhere in between, and it's fuzzy at best.
If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
One could say the same thing about a woman who successfully fends off a would-be rapist.
This is not a troll, I'm just asking. What's funny about the parent? Seriously, it just restates the obvious observation. I don't know why this deserves (Score:3,Funny), let alone (Score:5,Funny). Am I missing something here?
Yeah, and we breathe oxygen too. So putting them together can't be harmful either, right?
I guess that's why carbon monoxide is so safe.
Fullerenes conduct electricity, so its refractive index is most likely negative.
Pardon my ignorance, but I've got two questions:
1) Why is there a relationship between conductivity and index of refraction?
2) Index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to the speed of light in the material. As a result, you always have a number greater than 1. What does a negative I-of-R mean physically? The speed of light in the material would have to be negative? Would it reflect the beam rather than refract it?
Patent law is not just about the value that some monopoly has, but also whether the positive effects of granting such monopolies actually stimulates the sector in which they are granted, considering the inherent downsides of granting monopolies.
When was the last time an otherwise-valid patent was rejected because the economic sector to which it pertained was doing just fine at the moment and didn't need any further stimulation?
The effort to create working code is also protected by copyright (and not in any way by patent law, for that matter). You're still describing things in code, you're in effect translating.
Not relevant. I agree that the code itself should be copyrightable. That holds true even if the code doesn't do anything unique or novel or non-obvious. But there are novel non-obvious algorithmic solutions to problems that take a substantial amount of work to devise, before a single line of code is written, and copyrighting one particular source-code embodiment doesn't protect the investment in devising the algorithm.
A computer program is not a device, it's basically equivalent to a technical instruction manual
Semantics. A computer program may or may not be a device. An algorithm encoded in a computer program may or may not be a device. And whether or not you categorize something as a "device" shouldn't determine whether or not it is an "invention".
The description is indeed the only thing that is protected by copyright, that's how copyright is designed
Agreed, and I'm not suggesting that anything other than the description receive copyright protection. I'm suggesting that the underlying method being described is deserving of a different kind of protection.
No, I do not think that all new things done on a computer have to be per definition monopolizable.
Agreed. I can write a shoot-em-up computer game that doesn't do anything particularly novel or non-obvious, and therefore doesn't warrant a patent, but the code should still be protected by copyright. The patentability rests in the fact that something solves a difficult problem in a way that is novel and non-obvious to someone skilled in the art.
However, conversely, I do not think that if some (new) thing is not patentable (for example a faster fourier transform), that it should become patentable if you say it's done by a computer
I agree completely. I'm not sure why you thought I would be disputing this.
Because of the previously mentioned economic studies (the most important argument, which you did not address)
See my first paragraph above.
Because monopolies on mathematical algorithms are generally considered too broad,
Well, any patent application can be too broad. That can be fixed.
I find it hypocrite to only allow patents on it if one says it's done by a computer, if you at the same time keep claiming such achievements are not patentable. The patent is not granted because you were such a genius to use a computer to calculate that stuff.
Again, I agree.
If you really think mathematical achievements and/or business methods should be patentable, then please say so.
I never said anything about business methods. And mathematical achievements is too vague. I'm talking about complex novel non-obvious algorithms, not the discovery of basic truths like the Pythagorean Theorm.
And if you think they should be patentable, then show convincingly how this patentability will increase wealth in the sectors these patents apply to, otherwise it makes no sense to grant such patents.
The same way a mechanical process can increase wealth: by being the sole supplier of any embodiment of that process. The patent I originally cited is one that has been licensed, thereby demonstrating its economic value.
You seem to be arguing that it should be possible to get a monopol
The problem is that software is not an invention. It is a calculation.
1) You unjustifiably trivialize the complexity, novelty, and non-obviousness of some valuable computer algorithms by referring to them as "calculations". Even if technically correct, it is somewhat misleading to give the impression that we are talking about a mere linear sequence of arithmetic operations, like computing the tax on a restaurant bill.
2)I don't accept your premise that the terms "calculation" and "invention" are mutually exclusive.
I then in fact carry out that short patent. Did I violate that patent? Are you seriously suggesting that pure thought can/should be against the law?
First, it isn't "pure thought" unless you're not using the results in a commercial manner. Second, manufacture of a patented device often consists of pressing some metal into a particular shape and fastening a few pieces with nuts and bolts. Should mundane activities like this be against the law?
And if not, there's nothing patentable or inventive in the simple and obvious step of using an ordinary computer simply to speed up that calculation.
I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that a method or algorithm for solving some difficult problem shouldn't be patentable merely by virtue of the fact that you're doing it on a computer. It's the non-obviousness and novelty of the approach that warrants protection.
we had the Mental Steps doctrin which states you cannot get a patent for mental steps, that thoughts and calculations are not inventions and not patentable.
And then people realized that the bottom line is that we're trying to protect the return on investment of intellectual labor performed for the sake of real problem solving, and that the form of the final embodiment of the solution is completely irrelevant.
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Ronald Reagan
I'm glad Harry S. Truman didn't care who would get the credit for that quote when he said it.
Please step on brake, gas, and clutch simultaneously to reboot.
More like brake, gas, and passenger-side door lock simultaneously
If you didn't see it you would simply be stopped by it around your waste.
Serves ya right for crapping on the guy's chain.
Are you saying that string theory does not make falsifiable predictions?
Are patents necessary to get enough investments in the IT-sector?
The IT sector as a whole? Probably not, but that's like asking whether patents are necessary to get enough investments in manufacturing. The point is that there may be particular endeavors in IT whose value may be dependent on being able to be the sole supplier of the technology for a while after it is developed.
In software, the description is the implementation (since software is nothing but a description of something).
I strongly disagree. I can describe an algorithm in English, and through the use of visual aids, but further effort must be expended to create working code, just like a blueprint requires further effort to create a working device.
Whether or not what you describe is patentable, should be entirely independent from how you describe it
You're making my point for me here. Protecting only the implementation through copyright should be independent of protecting the method through patent.
Yet, an awful lot of unpatentable stuff suddenly becomes patentable if you say it's done by a computer.
Agreed. Something shouldn't simply become patentable by virtue of doing it on a computer. But in cases where the thing being patented is not only being done on a computer, but also being done for the very first time, whether a computer happens to be involved or not, should be protectable.
I think the grandparent poster is rather confused.
:).
Possibly, but I don't think so
A "law" is not just something that we have observed to be true and then taken for true (i.e. taken to be an axiom).
I did say "observed to be true", but I didn't say "taken for true" or "taken to be an axiom". I agree with you that laws are not axioms. Axioms fall within the domain of philosophy, logic, and mathematics. They are not part of the natural sciences. (Well, that might not be *completely* true. One might accept the internal consistency of the universe to be an axiom: an event cannot be construed to both have occurred and not occurred. But I digress...)
Rather, "law" is a term that has just been loosely applied,
I think I kind of implied that, by referring to the law of gravity as "what goes up must come down", and invoking Ohm's law that doesn't hold for everything, but only for devices where resistance is cconstant.
both pieces of scientific knowledge are not to be considered infallilble or not open to scrutiny. [...] laws are never "proven true", either
I do not dispute this, nor did I earlier.
Very nice, but there's a small problem, a common misconception actually. You imply that special relativity does not handle acceleration. That's not true. Problems involving accelerated frames can be handled just fine with a combination of special relativity and calculus. The only time you need general relativity is in problems where space-time is not flat, i.e. in the presence of strong gravitational fields. And no, accelerated frames are not indistinguishable from being in a gravitational field. They are only *locally* indistinguishable, and the word *locally* is the key here. Unless large masses are involved, SR is sufficient.
Why do we need software patents, though?
Because the kind of hard work and knowledge and investigation and thought that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in matter-space is exactly the kind that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in information-space. One type of problem solving shouldn't be protected more than the other simply because you need bolts and motors and lubricant to implement it.
If they're to protect only an implementation of an idea, as they say they are,
They do not exist merely to protect an implemention of an idea. They protect the technique that the implementation embodies.
And if they're protecting more than that, then they shouldn't be!
Why not? Should Xerox not have been granted a patent on the xerographic photocopy process, but rather only a copyright on their machine's manufacturing blueprints?
No. Scientific theories don't get promoted to laws. Laws are observations of things that appear to hold true. For example, the law of gravity ("what goes up, must come down"), Snell's Law, Ohm's Law, the Law of conservation of Mass/Energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. A theory is an *explanation* that models some observed phenomena and which has the power to predict other phenomena. Theories are either falsified (i.e. proven wrong), or are confirmed (i.e. shown to be consistent with some new observation.) Theories are never proven true; rather, they are simply confirmed to a greater and greater degree. No matter how well a theory is confirmed, it can always be falsified by a new experiment testing some as-yet-untested prediction. In this case, the theory is either revised to account for the new observation, or it is simply discarded.