Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.
Everyday Slashdot readers I would guess are mostly people who are in software, computers, math and high tech. Among these it is therefore very unlikely to find anyone being pro sw patents. I would guess around 98% of everyday Slashdot readers are against software patents, and then it is also rather relevant so say: "we are against software patents" (even though I generally don't like
cathegoric statements about others I think this is one to defend)
Exactly what I was intending, as I boycott Amazon since they used the one-click-patent for suing Barnes & Noble, even though I don't care about the game as such.
Anyway, this is yet another of all proofs that software patents should be abolished. Either they are stupid, or they are too broad, but almost always obvious and full of prior art, that is, they shouldn't be granted at all.
aim What do you mean, nobody's going to boycot Microsoft, I've boycotted them for ten years now!
Is true computer-created material possible, and if it is, is IT art?
This question has two interpretations:
1) Human organizing the "paint".
2) No human intervention.
In 1 you have just replaced the paint and canvas
with something else, and obviously it must be art
according to logics, but this does not guarantee
it to be considered as art by any human, as little
as any other art.
In 2 you need a computer which is intentionally
creating art or programmed good enough to mimic
the creative process. The question whether this
will be percieved as art by the observer is up
to the observer, human or machine.
Does anyone know of other candidates for computer-created art?
Toivo Kohonen at Helsinki university made some software for composing music in early 90ies.
I considered it sounded interresting, but a friend of mine who is a good musician said that it was lacking structures.
Ah, but with patents I can take your existing product (license), extend it and patent my extension. To build on top of others work and let others build on top of mine. (Sounds a bit like the GPL*)
So I buy a license for your "invention" to be used in my "invention". I then sell my "invention" to others to use.
I hope you are not serious about your comment, that is you were only ironic, because if you really believe that,
you have not understood software patents at all.
For someone else to build upon this idea then they would have to buy licenses from both, and so on.
A really efficient way to stop development of those ideas, and any of the infinite number of ideas building upon these ideas!
They're already insanely rich, they don't need to do crap Error 407 - No creative sig found
So, you mean that free software and open source is crap? Explain you better! Your reply doesn't make sense for me. MS business model is soon outdated.
Linux is replacing Unix at the moment
This is my point. I never considered MS myself because it simply didn't provide what I wanted. I'm a unix guy and these my needs Linux certainly provided. When I'm in a MS system I'm just hitting a wall, but as we have seen with e.g KDE and GNOME this will certainly not always be the case. Free software is also more valuable than commercial software because if the software is not successful it won't survive but if you like it you can continue the track anyway. How about those that actually liked the MSW 3.* metaphor what choice do they have today?
MS policy is about trying to adopt a whole world thinking in the most simplest way, and make money on it. There are, however, geeks out there who don't accept the MS way. These people want their way to survive, that is, they will also hopefully provide SW for those who are not thinking too deep about what they really want.
Is it really impossible to make aunt Bessie ask what she really wants?
Yes, that is correct, there are not enough aunt Bessies around asking for this yet!, lets assume that we can make aunt Bessie to ask for something more, to start her thinking... "what do I really wan't this so called computer to do for me?, and... then tell some "jesus"! theres only so much bread and fish, now all we need are a few jesuses..
What limits You to become a "Jesus"?
I intend to become one of those jesuses myself, with my business (based upon open source and open ideas)
/AIM
What MS need to assure is that MicroSoft finally will become a
company that provides what the customers want. Today MS is among
that line of companies pushing the customer to buy and not asking
the customer what the customer want (I've heard from insiders how
this works). A policy which will never work in the long run.
In the free software development the customer is also the designer,
for the skilled ones, but why could not the customer also be
the designer for the less skilled ones?
The reason that the free software development has been so successful
is that the providers are also the customers and can continue develop
the products. I'm not sure that MS has understood this simple fact
yet.
MicroSoft should adopt to this idea, and in the long run they can
become a very successful supplier of wanted software, designed by
the customer for the customer.
/AIM
Earlier Caps Lock/Cntrl had the correct placement
also on "PC", my first "laptop" I got 1988 had
it at the right place. It was IBM with their
PS2 layout who destroyed the keyboard, and made
it necessary to swap the cntrl-keys. Those who
designed these keyboard obviously didn't use emacs.
The Amiga also had the Cntrl key in the right place.
aim2future: If this form exist, and if this form would include e.g. a patented algorithm, you would not be able to express it.
werdna: Sorry, but huh?
aim2future: This is the essential, but you seem to avoid the question or refuse to understand it (as I claimed you to be, and you claimed you are "a lawyer". Lawyers are the ones that really want software patents because with this mess and anarchy software patents create, then lawyers surely make their living, but the rest just get a hell. Software developers don't want them, companies don't want them, and they are slowing down development! This is the reason why I reacted upon your writing. You sounded like a confused person who belive that you can patent software, but software is nothing but expressions of mathematics. With copyrights you can license a specific implementation or expression of an idea, but when you allow patent on it, then you actually patent the idea, the algorithm, the mathematical expression
werdna: Sure it is. Since it is quite easy, please give me one for the Gimp, and explain how the lambda expression corresponds to what happens on my computer screen as I paint. Please prove the correspondence. Take a week. I'll look forward to seeing the results of your work.
aim2future:
If you knew something about computer science you wouldn't come with these stupid claims. I guess most of gimp is coded in C, haven't checked. It's fairly easy to compile C to scheme (my favourite language) and scheme is almost identical to lambda calculus, just replace side effect like set!, nconc! etc with functional expressions and you are done. I don't intend to do it, because I don't see the point. The important point is that any program can be expressed in lambda calculus, and lambda calcus is a mathematical form.
werdna: We have agreement on one point. I agree that ideas are unpatentable, and this is expressly set forth in the Patent Act.
OK, that is good, then we agree, and then we also agree that software is not patentable, because software patents actually patents the idea with a program, but not the actual implementation, which copyrights are for.
You argue that "every program can be converted to lambda calculus
which is a mathematical expression form." I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Well, in case my message was confusing, your was even more. You answer
like that kind of strange people that consider that patents on software
could be motivated.
Lambda calculus is powerful enough to express any program, lambda
calculus is math, as is logic. Math is nothing but an agreed convention
about manipulating symbols.
If you are so sophisticated as to appreciate Church's thesis, you
certainly appreciate that every computable function on the integers
can be computed by an infinity of programs
This is not true, if any essential part of these programs were
patented. Even though it is not trivial to find a minimal form,
I claim that a minimal form exist. If this form exist, and if
this form would include e.g. a patented algorithm, you would
not be able to express it.
I seriously doubt you can produce in your lifetime a lambda
expression that adequately models the input-output properties of a
modern first-person shooter video game, which is certainly a computer
program.
You seem not to be in computer science at all. You seem to be a
lawyer or something like that, who doesn't understand programming.
You mix up complexity with math.
The correspondence is far more attenuated for video
games.
This doesn't mean that the expression doesn't exist, and I also claim
that it's quite easy to find such an expression, given the program.
The fact of the model does not mean that the human endeavor in one
field is equivalent to the human endeavor in the other.
This is exactly why computer programs should not be patentable.
Computer programs live in a perfect world, were patents have nothing
to do (but copyright is ok).
But the fact of the matter is: mathematics
IS NOT a subset of logic.
No, but logic is a subset of mathematics!
While it may be so that all valid theorems
can be reduced to a proof in a formal sentential calculus, I can
absolutely assure you that almost NO mathematician writing proofs is
"doing formal logic." Nor can we have any confidence at all (even
taking into account the limitations of Godel and Russell in these
models) that "doing formal logic" well could ever give us good results
in the other fields.
I'm not sure where I am going with this either. Perhaps something like
this: while we can almost assuredly MODEL a computer program in some
formal system, this is not the same as saying that programming is the
same as working the formal system.
What is then programming for you? Programming is nothing but utilizing
some syntax and sematics of a formal system in a
creative way, as is writing, as is art.
In the same sense, mathematics is an art, requring a lot of creativity
but when you have reached something that can be proved, you have something
you can express in a formal system, and this is math.
Every novel can be recoded in a mathematical fashion as well, but
writing a novel is not math. Likewise, I think, programming.
OK, now you seem to agree upon my point again, that any program
can be expressed in lambda calculus. You can as well find a coding
for a novel if you so want, but I never sad that programming is
math. Programming is an art, utilizing a formal system, so is
writing, so is math. The problem however, if you allow patents
on programs, then you would as well allow patents on ideas of
stories. I could patent the idea that the servant kill the
victim for instance.
Mind you, I am NOT asserting that math does not intensely inform the
art or science of programming. Indeed, a hold the precise opposite
position.
My point is merely that the ability to show correspondence between
entities in one arena and the other does not permit you to draw the
conclusions you have drawn here, both in terms of the utility of math
and the patent system.
I can go further, I did express myself very brief, but I stick to
my ar
As with many things you do, you can do it quite a while without getting heavily into math, but when you deepen yourself you have to understand math and master it to a certain extent. For several years I did quite a lot of sw development without really using math, but when later starting my PhD I would have been lost without math.
Programs are math. Every program can be converted to lambda calculus which is a mathematical expression form. Programs are art, as well as math can be seen as, and...
programs are literary work. A certain story or idea can be expressed in many ways, without changing he actual idea behind the program.
This is also the reason why software can not and should not be patentable, as it is now within USPTO (due to an old mistake...).
Slashdot Mirror
We are against software patents.
Please don't include me in your blanket statements. Likewise, I don't think the entire slashdot community wants you speaking on our behalf.
Everyday Slashdot readers I would guess are mostly people who are in software, computers, math and high tech. Among these it is therefore very unlikely to find anyone being pro sw patents. I would guess around 98% of everyday Slashdot readers are against software patents, and then it is also rather relevant so say:"we are against software patents"
(even though I generally don't like cathegoric statements about others I think this is one to defend)
What do you think? (about boycotting Yahoo)
Exactly what I was intending, as I boycott Amazon since they used the one-click-patent for suing Barnes & Noble, even though I don't care about the game as such.
Anyway, this is yet another of all proofs that software patents should be abolished. Either they are stupid, or they are too broad, but almost always obvious and full of prior art, that is, they shouldn't be granted at all.
aimWhat do you mean, nobody's going to boycot Microsoft, I've boycotted them for ten years now!
Is true computer-created material possible, and if it is, is IT art?
This question has two interpretations:
1) Human organizing the "paint".
2) No human intervention.
In 1 you have just replaced the paint and canvas with something else, and obviously it must be art according to logics, but this does not guarantee it to be considered as art by any human, as little as any other art.
In 2 you need a computer which is intentionally creating art or programmed good enough to mimic the creative process. The question whether this will be percieved as art by the observer is up to the observer, human or machine.
Does anyone know of other candidates for computer-created art?Toivo Kohonen at Helsinki university made some software for composing music in early 90ies. I considered it sounded interresting, but a friend of mine who is a good musician said that it was lacking structures.
aimSo I buy a license for your "invention" to be used in my "invention". I then sell my "invention" to others to use.
I hope you are not serious about your comment, that is you were only ironic, because if you really believe that, you have not understood software patents at all.
A really efficient way to stop development of those ideas, and any of the infinite number of ideas building upon these ideas!For someone else to build upon this idea then they would have to buy licenses from both, and so on.
They're already insanely rich, they don't need to do crap
Error 407 - No creative sig found
So, you mean that free software and open source is crap? Explain you better! Your reply doesn't make sense for me. MS business model is soon outdated.
Linux is replacing Unix at the moment
This is my point. I never considered MS myself because it simply didn't provide what I wanted. I'm a unix guy and these my needs Linux certainly provided. When I'm in a MS system I'm just hitting a wall, but as we have seen with e.g KDE and GNOME this will certainly not always be the case. Free software is also more valuable than commercial software because if the software is not successful it won't survive but if you like it you can continue the track anyway. How about those that actually liked the MSW 3.* metaphor what choice do they have today?
MS policy is about trying to adopt a whole world thinking in the most simplest way, and make money on it. There are, however, geeks out there who don't accept the MS way. These people want their way to survive, that is, they will also hopefully provide SW for those who are not thinking too deep about what they really want.
Is it really impossible to make aunt Bessie ask what she really wants?
Yes, that is correct, there are not enough aunt Bessies around asking for this yet!, lets assume that we can make aunt Bessie to ask for something more, to start her thinking... "what do I really wan't this so called computer to do for me?, and... then tell some "jesus"!
/AIM
theres only so much bread and fish, now all we need are a few jesuses..
What limits You to become a "Jesus"?
I intend to become one of those jesuses myself, with my business (based upon open source and open ideas)
What MS need to assure is that MicroSoft finally will become a company that provides what the customers want. Today MS is among that line of companies pushing the customer to buy and not asking the customer what the customer want (I've heard from insiders how this works). A policy which will never work in the long run.
/AIM
In the free software development the customer is also the designer, for the skilled ones, but why could not the customer also be the designer for the less skilled ones?
The reason that the free software development has been so successful is that the providers are also the customers and can continue develop the products. I'm not sure that MS has understood this simple fact yet.
MicroSoft should adopt to this idea, and in the long run they can become a very successful supplier of wanted software, designed by the customer for the customer.
Earlier Caps Lock/Cntrl had the correct placement also on "PC", my first "laptop" I got 1988 had it at the right place. It was IBM with their PS2 layout who destroyed the keyboard, and made it necessary to swap the cntrl-keys. Those who designed these keyboard obviously didn't use emacs. The Amiga also had the Cntrl key in the right place.
werdna: Sorry, but huh?
aim2future: This is the essential, but you seem to avoid the question or refuse to understand it (as I claimed you to be, and you claimed you are "a lawyer". Lawyers are the ones that really want software patents because with this mess and anarchy software patents create, then lawyers surely make their living, but the rest just get a hell. Software developers don't want them, companies don't want them, and they are slowing down development! This is the reason why I reacted upon your writing. You sounded like a confused person who belive that you can patent software, but software is nothing but expressions of mathematics. With copyrights you can license a specific implementation or expression of an idea, but when you allow patent on it, then you actually patent the idea, the algorithm, the mathematical expression
werdna: Sure it is. Since it is quite easy, please give me one for the Gimp, and explain how the lambda expression corresponds to what happens on my computer screen as I paint. Please prove the correspondence. Take a week. I'll look forward to seeing the results of your work.
aim2future: If you knew something about computer science you wouldn't come with these stupid claims. I guess most of gimp is coded in C, haven't checked. It's fairly easy to compile C to scheme (my favourite language) and scheme is almost identical to lambda calculus, just replace side effect like set!, nconc! etc with functional expressions and you are done. I don't intend to do it, because I don't see the point. The important point is that any program can be expressed in lambda calculus, and lambda calcus is a mathematical form.
werdna: We have agreement on one point. I agree that ideas are unpatentable, and this is expressly set forth in the Patent Act.OK, that is good, then we agree, and then we also agree that software is not patentable, because software patents actually patents the idea with a program, but not the actual implementation, which copyrights are for.
Best regardsWell, in case my message was confusing, your was even more. You answer like that kind of strange people that consider that patents on software could be motivated.
Lambda calculus is powerful enough to express any program, lambda calculus is math, as is logic. Math is nothing but an agreed convention about manipulating symbols.
If you are so sophisticated as to appreciate Church's thesis, you certainly appreciate that every computable function on the integers can be computed by an infinity of programs
This is not true, if any essential part of these programs were patented. Even though it is not trivial to find a minimal form, I claim that a minimal form exist. If this form exist, and if this form would include e.g. a patented algorithm, you would not be able to express it.
I seriously doubt you can produce in your lifetime a lambda expression that adequately models the input-output properties of a modern first-person shooter video game, which is certainly a computer program.
You seem not to be in computer science at all. You seem to be a lawyer or something like that, who doesn't understand programming. You mix up complexity with math.
The correspondence is far more attenuated for video games.
This doesn't mean that the expression doesn't exist, and I also claim that it's quite easy to find such an expression, given the program.
The fact of the model does not mean that the human endeavor in one field is equivalent to the human endeavor in the other.
This is exactly why computer programs should not be patentable. Computer programs live in a perfect world, were patents have nothing to do (but copyright is ok).
But the fact of the matter is: mathematics IS NOT a subset of logic.
No, but logic is a subset of mathematics!
While it may be so that all valid theorems can be reduced to a proof in a formal sentential calculus, I can absolutely assure you that almost NO mathematician writing proofs is "doing formal logic." Nor can we have any confidence at all (even taking into account the limitations of Godel and Russell in these models) that "doing formal logic" well could ever give us good results in the other fields. I'm not sure where I am going with this either. Perhaps something like this: while we can almost assuredly MODEL a computer program in some formal system, this is not the same as saying that programming is the same as working the formal system.
What is then programming for you? Programming is nothing but utilizing some syntax and sematics of a formal system in a creative way, as is writing, as is art. In the same sense, mathematics is an art, requring a lot of creativity but when you have reached something that can be proved, you have something you can express in a formal system, and this is math.
Every novel can be recoded in a mathematical fashion as well, but writing a novel is not math. Likewise, I think, programming.
OK, now you seem to agree upon my point again, that any program can be expressed in lambda calculus. You can as well find a coding for a novel if you so want, but I never sad that programming is math. Programming is an art, utilizing a formal system, so is writing, so is math. The problem however, if you allow patents on programs, then you would as well allow patents on ideas of stories. I could patent the idea that the servant kill the victim for instance.
Mind you, I am NOT asserting that math does not intensely inform the art or science of programming. Indeed, a hold the precise opposite position. My point is merely that the ability to show correspondence between entities in one arena and the other does not permit you to draw the conclusions you have drawn here, both in terms of the utility of math and the patent system.
I can go further, I did express myself very brief, but I stick to my ar
As with many things you do, you can do it quite a while without getting heavily into math, but when you deepen yourself you have to understand math and master it to a certain extent. For several years I did quite a lot of sw development without really using math, but when later starting my PhD I would have been lost without math. Programs are math. Every program can be converted to lambda calculus which is a mathematical expression form. Programs are art, as well as math can be seen as, and... programs are literary work. A certain story or idea can be expressed in many ways, without changing he actual idea behind the program. This is also the reason why software can not and should not be patentable, as it is now within USPTO (due to an old mistake...).