Software patents -- at least in their current form(s) of existence -- might be a Bad Solution, but they're hardly evil. They are evil only if you believe that authors should hold no rights over their creation (because "Information wants to be free"). Only then is there any reason in completely rejecting software patents -- or any other forms of protecting some form of creation or invention -- as 'evil'. If, however, the creators of software are to be protected (and Copyright is not Good Enough), software patents turn out to be just a bad solution to a problem. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only existing solution.
What am I supposed to think of Google now? Have they joined the Evil side, or is this a case of 'good' patents (see the remark about 'insight into how Google's ad servers work')?
I wrote a multi-paragraph reply to your comment, but Slashdot ate it. And now i just cannot be bothered to retype it, so i'll just sum it up in two words: Fuck you.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Actually, i just wanted to say that i'm sorry for not reading your comment, but i'm just so fed up with the constant anti-patent boo-hoo-hooing that goes on on Slashdot that when i saw (and skimmed) your comment, my first reaction was to post a cheap flame.
However, now that you've mentioned appendices and references, you've managed to raise my curiosity. I'd read the whole thing with the appendices, but anything longer than five paragraphs is a pain to read on Slashdot (not to mention that it just ate two of my comments). So if you could be so kind then my email should be right next to my name.
I was going to take time, read his piece and post an actual reply to him, but you've just made me change my mind about it, so i only have two words for you: 'fuck' and 'you'. And i also would like you to know that i'd fucking foe you if it wasn't for my principles (never foe anyone!) and the fact that it'd be a waste of perfectly good friend points.
I'm sorry for not having taken the time to actually read your post. However, i am not going to apologise for what i said. The following is not an apology:7 I'm quite fed up with all the anti-patent boo-hoo-hooing on Slashdot with practically noone posting any actual arguments why software patents are bad (hell, many of these people can't even tell the difference between patents and copyrights, yet still feel obliged to post their opinion). Many of these posts are copy-pastes from some anti-patent propaganda site. Yours might be different, but it's a pain for me to read such relatively lengthy (at least for Slashdot) pieces on the screen, and i'm not going to waste perfectly good paper on printing out a page from Slashdot.
However, you have made me curious about what you've got to say. So if you could be so kind then my email is right next to my name.
Somebody once wrote a book claiming what your saying
Vladimir Rezun, aka Viktor Suvorov. I've read some of his books, and i agree that most of the stuff he writes is bullshit. The only one of his theories that has, as far as i know, held water (might have something to do with the fact that it wasn't actually his idea), the only one that even his opponents agree with, is the one that USSR was planning an attack. But no matter how Suvorov tries to spin the facts (for him, Stalin was a genius of military strategy and everything he (that is, Stalin) did, even the obvious mistakes, was yet another sign of his brilliance), there is still no denying that the German attack did come as a surprise to the Soviets.
Oh, please. As if this site didn't already post enough anti software patent propaganda (real actual arguments are scarce), now you had to do it, too. Cut this copy-pasting out, okay? Noone will never read these long comments anyway. Or if you really have to do it, then at least have the decency to either name your source or slip a clever troll somewhere in the middle of the text. Is it a deal?
You ignore the rest of the planet and idea of national security is based on threats, violence, oppression and insanely stupid propaganda that does not work in a Europe with educated people.
LMAO. You sound like a Jeremy Rifkin fanboy.
Really, the people living in Europe are just as bigoted, racist and uneducated as Americans. They're not angels, you know. They're humans.
Oh, and CSI is about just as boring and lame as The Da Vinci Code.
Actually, there is evidence that Stalin was planning an attack on Germany, but Hitler beat him to it (by just a few weeks). So they were both backstabbing pricks (which isn't really much of a surprise).
On a related note, it turns out that Hitler may have been the inventor of the inflatable sex doll.
where government was too stupid to know the difference between copyrights and patents
Judging from what i've seen on Slashdot, the people -- even the ones that think they know everything about software -- aren't any smarter in this respect, either...
Actually, the one-click patent cited in the GNU link was really not so obvious after all. Even Tim O'Reilly, the man that offered $10,000 rewards for finding prior art to this, has later admitted this.
According to Izvestia, the first hearing took place on Monday, but as the representatives of NASA were not present in the court, it was postponed to the 28th.
And i do believe they will let the case proceed, as the judge recommended that the astrologer and her defendant find a specialist who would be able to tell whether the experiment caused and increased threat of comet impact. It seems that they are trying to spin the case into a demonstration against the US "solving all problems, scientific ones included, with bombs." (quoting the astrologer herself) Yeah, so it might be absurd, but it seems that in foreign politics, everything goes for the Russians.
After all, they did just alter my fate. If a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, then who knows what consequences this change of Universal order might have!
No, it isn't, and that's the whole problem. Copyright doesn't cover enough ground to protect the actual idea (say, one-click shopping) from being copied. Patents eliminate this problem. Regardless of the amount of work put into developing this new piece of software, there is still the problem whether the thing being patented is innovative or not. I'd say that it is. All the human inventions have basically been about copying a manual process onto a machine. Computers are no different in this respect. And it does take a lot of work and creativity to do this.
PS: labelling anyone that doesn't agree with you a 'zealot' hardly helps to support your cause.
It's also because most of the metaphors used (file, directory/folder, copy-paste, desktop, etc) originate from business environments (accounting and archives). The software written today still uses the same old (old enough to have grown a long grey beard) concepts -- and is, as a result, ugly and boring. More importantly, it can sometimes be a pain to use, as these metaphors used do not apply to all situations the software is used in.
I find your enthusiasm over the New Media disturbing. Being a cynic (some might also call me an elitist), i fear that in the upcoming battle, the only victims will be the individuals, who will be forced to surrender to the prevailing groupthink.
Slashdot Mirror
Software patents -- at least in their current form(s) of existence -- might be a Bad Solution, but they're hardly evil. They are evil only if you believe that authors should hold no rights over their creation (because "Information wants to be free"). Only then is there any reason in completely rejecting software patents -- or any other forms of protecting some form of creation or invention -- as 'evil'. If, however, the creators of software are to be protected (and Copyright is not Good Enough), software patents turn out to be just a bad solution to a problem. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only existing solution.
What am I supposed to think of Google now? Have they joined the Evil side, or is this a case of 'good' patents (see the remark about 'insight into how Google's ad servers work')?
They are going to clone Liam Gallaher!?
Thank you for your time. Next, please!
Actually, i just wanted to say that i'm sorry for not reading your comment, but i'm just so fed up with the constant anti-patent boo-hoo-hooing that goes on on Slashdot that when i saw (and skimmed) your comment, my first reaction was to post a cheap flame.
However, now that you've mentioned appendices and references, you've managed to raise my curiosity. I'd read the whole thing with the appendices, but anything longer than five paragraphs is a pain to read on Slashdot (not to mention that it just ate two of my comments). So if you could be so kind then my email should be right next to my name.
Thank you for your time. Next!
However, you have made me curious about what you've got to say. So if you could be so kind then my email is right next to my name.
kthx :)
Who's this "us" that you're talking about? I do not consider myself a part of your mob, so please stop making speeches in my name.
Vladimir Rezun, aka Viktor Suvorov. I've read some of his books, and i agree that most of the stuff he writes is bullshit. The only one of his theories that has, as far as i know, held water (might have something to do with the fact that it wasn't actually his idea), the only one that even his opponents agree with, is the one that USSR was planning an attack. But no matter how Suvorov tries to spin the facts (for him, Stalin was a genius of military strategy and everything he (that is, Stalin) did, even the obvious mistakes, was yet another sign of his brilliance), there is still no denying that the German attack did come as a surprise to the Soviets.
Oh, please. As if this site didn't already post enough anti software patent propaganda (real actual arguments are scarce), now you had to do it, too. Cut this copy-pasting out, okay? Noone will never read these long comments anyway. Or if you really have to do it, then at least have the decency to either name your source or slip a clever troll somewhere in the middle of the text. Is it a deal?
LMAO. You sound like a Jeremy Rifkin fanboy.
Really, the people living in Europe are just as bigoted, racist and uneducated as Americans. They're not angels, you know. They're humans.
Oh, and CSI is about just as boring and lame as The Da Vinci Code.
On a related note, it turns out that Hitler may have been the inventor of the inflatable sex doll.
These are not zombie pc-s. These are Communist pc-s (running Red Flag Linux -- what else?), working together for the common good.
So are you saying that the open source community are not capable of coming up with anything new (ie a solution that hasn't been patented) then?
Judging from what i've seen on Slashdot, the people -- even the ones that think they know everything about software -- aren't any smarter in this respect, either...
Actually, the one-click patent cited in the GNU link was really not so obvious after all. Even Tim O'Reilly, the man that offered $10,000 rewards for finding prior art to this, has later admitted this.
And i do believe they will let the case proceed, as the judge recommended that the astrologer and her defendant find a specialist who would be able to tell whether the experiment caused and increased threat of comet impact. It seems that they are trying to spin the case into a demonstration against the US "solving all problems, scientific ones included, with bombs." (quoting the astrologer herself) Yeah, so it might be absurd, but it seems that in foreign politics, everything goes for the Russians.
After all, they did just alter my fate. If a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, then who knows what consequences this change of Universal order might have!
No, it isn't, and that's the whole problem. Copyright doesn't cover enough ground to protect the actual idea (say, one-click shopping) from being copied. Patents eliminate this problem. Regardless of the amount of work put into developing this new piece of software, there is still the problem whether the thing being patented is innovative or not. I'd say that it is. All the human inventions have basically been about copying a manual process onto a machine. Computers are no different in this respect. And it does take a lot of work and creativity to do this.
PS: labelling anyone that doesn't agree with you a 'zealot' hardly helps to support your cause.
It's also because most of the metaphors used (file, directory/folder, copy-paste, desktop, etc) originate from business environments (accounting and archives). The software written today still uses the same old (old enough to have grown a long grey beard) concepts -- and is, as a result, ugly and boring. More importantly, it can sometimes be a pain to use, as these metaphors used do not apply to all situations the software is used in.
I'll see your Derrida and raise you a Baudrillard!
I find your enthusiasm over the New Media disturbing. Being a cynic (some might also call me an elitist), i fear that in the upcoming battle, the only victims will be the individuals, who will be forced to surrender to the prevailing groupthink.
It is, if noone had done it before.