I have news for you. Very often, innovation is about taking some existing idea and applying it in a different context in a seemingly obvious way that noone had actually thought of before (this, if i'm not mistaken, is exactly the way Edison invented his phonograph: the fact that sound could be recorded onto a wax cylinder or similar medium was already known at that time, but before Edison, noone had had the idea (or a working method) to reverse the process using another membrane (like the one used in a telephone) and another needle for playback) .
You did, but you missed the important bit -- the part where it says in a computer system. They have probably come up with a system that "coordinates the delivery a gift given by a gift giver to a recipient when the gift giver did not provide sufficient delivery information" with as little human input as possible. I assume that such a system is probably innovative. And now they want to protect this system from being copied by others. It's as simple as that. Why should they be denied this protection?
Why not? Because the maths may have been there, but without actual computers there would have been no need to use such algorithms, meaning that noone (bar for a few math freaks) would have bothered with such mind games.
t is not useless. I can use those patented mental steps to squeeze more data into an extended barcode, or to squeeze more data into a morse code transmission, or...shock of shocks... I could even type the compressed data into a computer and use it in absolutely any other way that LZW compression is routinely used.
What all these three examples have in common is that you take something originally computer-related and then retroactively use it in some other way -- sort of like they build cars out of stone, wood, and animals in Flintstones. This does not, however, change the fact that neither the LZW algorithm nor the RSA algorithm would have been invented if there were no computers.
And in each and every cases I am violating the patent. I am actually preforming the patented process and actually producing the patented result. I am effectively commiting thought crime.
I can't see how could that be so. There is no harm done to the patent holder in you "implementing" the patented algorithm in your head. No economic loss.
Software patents are entirely unreasonable because you cannot "invent" mathematics and calculations.
Software patents are entirely reasonable because it's not calculations that are being invented and patented but different (and non-obvious) ways of applying these calculations. The significance of an invention isn't how hard it is to copy, but how it reframes the problem in a new way. The two examples you brought do just that. On one hand, they present new (and non-obvious) ways of solving a problem. In addition to that, they use a computer to implement these calculations; the patented algorithms are useless outside the realm of computer software. Yes, you can do these calculations in your head, but using the LZW algorithm to compress something in your head is useless, as the uncompressed data will still exist the same in your head. Doing it on paper is, however, pointless, as you'll just end up wasting paper. Yes, you can encrypt things on paper with the RSA algorithm, but again, it'll be quite useless if there's no computer around.
There's no way we can stop this utter madness then?
It must be an bizarre world you live in where software patents are considered 'utter madness'.
And no, we cannot stop this 'madness' -- but why should we? Software patents are a reasonable idea -- at least inside this particular system. Of course there will probably never be an implementation of this idea that would satisfy everyone, but does not by far mean that the idea itself is bad.
A few weeks ago, a lake mysteriously went missing in Russia. Back then, many people suspected that the lake had gotten fed up with the villagers throwing garbage into it, and just walked away. I guess we now know where it went:7
I don't know if some dope modded you up or if you did it yourself using another account, but either way it warrants modding down.
You must be new here:p otherwise you'd know that all mods are on crack (they hand it out to moderators along with mod points, one dose per batch of mod points, as a stimulus to be a good moderator -- bad moderations, no crack). Getting modded up to +5 is so easy that it's not even funny.
I'd like to thank you for your awfully sarcastic reply. Unfortunately, you completely missed the point of my posting this comment. I posted it with the purpose of a) getting an early comment and b) getting modded up in order to c) make more people follow the chain of links in my double sig. Unfortunately, i had to sacrifice any actual content my post could have had in order to fulfil the aforementioned three objectives. Were i a subscriber, i would have had more time to put more thought into my comment. Unfortunately, i'm not one, so i didn't. I hope you'll forgive me:7
I now realize that they only want to throw you in FUCKING PRISON if you try to build a system that actually works. My bad.
You won't -- as long as the system you have built listens to the broadcast flag and discards all flagged content (or outputs it in degraded form)*. Yeah, it'd be almost fucking impossible to build a legal HDTV box, but there'd still be a tiny possibility not to break the law. I do agree that it's silly, though.
* Yes, i finally took time to actually read the article.
For now, the good news is that it is still legal to put together your own home-theater PC.
Bah. The broadcast flag will not make it illegal for you to build your own home-theater. How could they stop you from doing it? You just won't be able to record (or watch?) anything.
Actually, it does make a lot of sense if you see things their way. If we don't act now, there might not be much left to save by the time we have a working solution (why do we even need one? Because there's reason to believe that in the near future, we'll hit an oil crisis and will need another energy source). Wind power might not be as good a solution as fusion power is (building all those wind farms will probably take even more resources than building a fusion plant), but if it works, it would at least be a partial solution for the immediate problem at hand.
And yes, i find it reasonable to solve the power problem (if there will ever be one) using that works now, instead of waiting for the utopia (at present, it is a utopia, in that it doesn't exist yet, and might not even come to exist in the form everyone imagines that it will) of fusion power to come true.
It seems to be because of safety concerns, but also because they demand a solution that would work now, not 50 years in the future. From the BBC article: "However, some environmental groups are doubtful about the viability of nuclear fusion, and have warned that Cadarache lies on a known earthquake faultline./../Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies. "With 10 billion [euros], we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International."
I can actually see their point, yet this doesn't mean i agree with them...
Maybe there's a lesson here somewhere: don't rely on just one means of communication too much, because if it goes down, you're paralysed. Who knows, maybe the doomsayers are right and the internet will collapse in a few years; imagine the chaos this will cause in the Western world!
to create said creatures, who do you think Tolkien got the inspiration from?
Well, they certainly didn't come out of thin air, but neither did they come out of Tolkien's head. Most of them (save for the hobbits and the orcs) came from Nordic mythology. Sacred-texts.com has a list (and texts) of many of his sources.
I suppose that he did confront some empire or another on his way, but yeah, it doesn't really make any sense. I'd have expected a reputable newspaper like NYT to check the facts before publishing such nonsense.
- We have been trolled.
What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?
Impossible. First, it's just a story, and second, in Tolkien's world, there are no lawyers (and no solicitors, either). He'd just have gotten his ass whooped.
Simon says it's 2032. If you want to find out what's been going on ever since you left, you can always peruse some newsreels in the Schwartzenegger Library.
I've got a better idea. Let's encode the text of these thousands of books to standard ASCII.
What, like Project Gutenberg? Because i'd venture that most of these books (they're called classics for a reason, you know) are already in the public domain and available online.
Slashdot Mirror
I have news for you. Very often, innovation is about taking some existing idea and applying it in a different context in a seemingly obvious way that noone had actually thought of before (this, if i'm not mistaken, is exactly the way Edison invented his phonograph: the fact that sound could be recorded onto a wax cylinder or similar medium was already known at that time, but before Edison, noone had had the idea (or a working method) to reverse the process using another membrane (like the one used in a telephone) and another needle for playback) .
You did, but you missed the important bit -- the part where it says in a computer system. They have probably come up with a system that "coordinates the delivery a gift given by a gift giver to a recipient when the gift giver did not provide sufficient delivery information" with as little human input as possible. I assume that such a system is probably innovative. And now they want to protect this system from being copied by others. It's as simple as that. Why should they be denied this protection?
Does wearing glasses or bracers count as modifying your body?
Why not? Because the maths may have been there, but without actual computers there would have been no need to use such algorithms, meaning that noone (bar for a few math freaks) would have bothered with such mind games.
You DID IT! And now that there's nothing left for you to do, you can DIE IN PEACE! HOORAY!
What all these three examples have in common is that you take something originally computer-related and then retroactively use it in some other way -- sort of like they build cars out of stone, wood, and animals in Flintstones. This does not, however, change the fact that neither the LZW algorithm nor the RSA algorithm would have been invented if there were no computers.
And in each and every cases I am violating the patent. I am actually preforming the patented process and actually producing the patented result. I am effectively commiting thought crime.
I can't see how could that be so. There is no harm done to the patent holder in you "implementing" the patented algorithm in your head. No economic loss.
Software patents are entirely reasonable because it's not calculations that are being invented and patented but different (and non-obvious) ways of applying these calculations. The significance of an invention isn't how hard it is to copy, but how it reframes the problem in a new way. The two examples you brought do just that. On one hand, they present new (and non-obvious) ways of solving a problem. In addition to that, they use a computer to implement these calculations; the patented algorithms are useless outside the realm of computer software. Yes, you can do these calculations in your head, but using the LZW algorithm to compress something in your head is useless, as the uncompressed data will still exist the same in your head. Doing it on paper is, however, pointless, as you'll just end up wasting paper. Yes, you can encrypt things on paper with the RSA algorithm, but again, it'll be quite useless if there's no computer around.
It must be an bizarre world you live in where software patents are considered 'utter madness'.
And no, we cannot stop this 'madness' -- but why should we? Software patents are a reasonable idea -- at least inside this particular system. Of course there will probably never be an implementation of this idea that would satisfy everyone, but does not by far mean that the idea itself is bad.
A few weeks ago, a lake mysteriously went missing in Russia. Back then, many people suspected that the lake had gotten fed up with the villagers throwing garbage into it, and just walked away. I guess we now know where it went :7
How to rob an Apple fanboi.
You must be new here :p otherwise you'd know that all mods are on crack (they hand it out to moderators along with mod points, one dose per batch of mod points, as a stimulus to be a good moderator -- bad moderations, no crack). Getting modded up to +5 is so easy that it's not even funny.
I now realize that they only want to throw you in FUCKING PRISON if you try to build a system that actually works. My bad.
You won't -- as long as the system you have built listens to the broadcast flag and discards all flagged content (or outputs it in degraded form)*. Yeah, it'd be almost fucking impossible to build a legal HDTV box, but there'd still be a tiny possibility not to break the law. I do agree that it's silly, though.
* Yes, i finally took time to actually read the article.
Bah. The broadcast flag will not make it illegal for you to build your own home-theater. How could they stop you from doing it? You just won't be able to record (or watch?) anything.
---
"Follow the links," he said.
Actually, it does make a lot of sense if you see things their way. If we don't act now, there might not be much left to save by the time we have a working solution (why do we even need one? Because there's reason to believe that in the near future, we'll hit an oil crisis and will need another energy source). Wind power might not be as good a solution as fusion power is (building all those wind farms will probably take even more resources than building a fusion plant), but if it works, it would at least be a partial solution for the immediate problem at hand.
And yes, i find it reasonable to solve the power problem (if there will ever be one) using that works now, instead of waiting for the utopia (at present, it is a utopia, in that it doesn't exist yet, and might not even come to exist in the form everyone imagines that it will) of fusion power to come true.
---
A nasty snotball
I can actually see their point, yet this doesn't mean i agree with them...
---
Came flying low.
---
It hit his face.
---
The monk extolled.
Well, they certainly didn't come out of thin air, but neither did they come out of Tolkien's head. Most of them (save for the hobbits and the orcs) came from Nordic mythology. Sacred-texts.com has a list (and texts) of many of his sources.
---
Oh goodness grace!
I suppose that he did confront some empire or another on his way, but yeah, it doesn't really make any sense. I'd have expected a reputable newspaper like NYT to check the facts before publishing such nonsense.
-
We have been trolled.
Impossible. First, it's just a story, and second, in Tolkien's world, there are no lawyers (and no solicitors, either). He'd just have gotten his ass whooped.
---
Burma Shave.
You fail it.
Burma Shave.
Simon says it's 2032. If you want to find out what's been going on ever since you left, you can always peruse some newsreels in the Schwartzenegger Library.
Sounds like a great plot for a movie, doesn't it?
A mortally wounded gunshot victim?
What, like Project Gutenberg? Because i'd venture that most of these books (they're called classics for a reason, you know) are already in the public domain and available online.