Bleeding edge is always a ridiculous expense. The people who are willing to be there already know who they are. That you even raise this question means that you are not.
OTOH, neither am I, but that's not the point. The point is, this is the first commercial volley of a new technology, which means that a few years hence it will be cheaper with even higher data densities.
Meaning, potentially, something like the entire run of every season of every Star Trek series ever... on one disc.
Dear FSM, yes I have. I'm still looking for a feedback button to tell them it's retarded.
Maybe that's what Google needs - a user moderation system. You know, something that'll keep a score for the page, maybe even let users flag it as "imformative" or "insightful". I seem to remember that somebody around here has something like that...
What would you say if I made a machine whose sole purpose was to accomplish the same task as the software in question, let's say a word processor. I could design a mechanical computer or a relay logic computer that could do word processing.
The cynic in me says the typewriter has already been invented;-)
What would I say? I believe I'd start with "Wow!" Even if we were talking about a "mere" text editor, something just terribly trivial to implement on a modern PC, to build that as a mechanical device is daunting. If you start trying to engineer cut-n-paste and file saves, you're talking about a clockwork that would make the Babbage Engine look like a child's wind-up toy.
The fact of the matter is, even an old mechanical typewriter is a pretty intricate device. Lots of absurdly close tolerances strewn across some absurdly Rube Goldberg-esque linkages. Non-trivial, non-obvious, and definitely furthuring a great deal of things, not the least of which was the chance for the EveryMan to be able to produce professional-quality print without the investment in, or difficulty of running, a letterset press. This is what patents are for.
Now, assuming I designed said machine before any other word processor was built, would I have the moral right to patent this machine?
Absolutely! As I said, you would be elevating the art of clockwork assemblies to just a mind-bending extreme. Even if it weren't practical, it would be studied for years to come.
But that patent covers your solution - your device. It is not meant to cover the entire category "editing text". If another enterprising young mind finds their own solution to the problem, and it does not use your mechanisms, he is free to build, patent, and market that as well. This is called "competition", and it is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
I sense that this is the expected answer, and that the question is meant to lead directly into the followup, "Why then not software that does the same thing?" This is a perfectly reasonable question. It is the question I would ask were I on the other side of the debate. It is a question which I will come back to later in another post. Sorry:-)
Redundant. Trademark already covers a lot of this territory. These patents do nothing "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", the Constitutional principle upon which all other patent law is supposed to be based. That said, I really want to hate design patents, but the truth is I just don't care that much about them. Perhaps merely because they haven't been as flagrantly abused (yet) as some other categories of patents, I don't know.
Moving on... actually, I can't move on just yet. I want to answer the rest of your post, and I will, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll try to come back to this tonight. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the question.
Level of abstraction? Okay, explain how you're a walrus.
That's just it. I'm not. I was being snippy at this statement: All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.
So, let's have it. Program your computer into a spinning wheel. No mechanical apparatus, just pound away at those keys until it starts spitting out yarn. I'll give you as long as you want. Hell, I'll sit in the mall under a neon sign that says "I am the walrus" knitting you a sweater out of that yarn if you can do it. (I fully expect I'll never have to learn to knit)
But "at some level of abstraction", sure your computer is a spinning wheel. So I'm a walrus. We both breathe air, grow hair, have teeth, heart, lungs, liver, skin... isn't it obvious? Hey, you're a walrus, too!
Under your logic, nothing at all could be patented.
This may be showing my hand a bit, but I don't think that would bother me. I am not an advocate for completely abolishing patents, though such folks do exist. I'm more of an agnostic on the point.
After all, a gear is an "instruction" for the conversion or translation of angular motion. All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.
Oh, come off it. This is the most tortured argument - look, at some level of abstraction, I am a walrus. KooKooKachoo. At some level of detail, I am not. I suppose you have trouble distinguishing a real car from a Gran Turismo disc?
That's why the USPTO started allowing software patents in 1981.
Technically, they didn't. Software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable as software. Software patents all come in under the ruling that allows business methods to be patented. That's why they all begin "A method for [...]" and go to such lingual gymnastics to avoid using the word "algorithm" ever.
It might seem that this point is splitting a hair, but this happens to be a very important hair.
A computer is a general-purpose machine. A computer's purpose is to process an organized collection of instructions to do a specific thing. These instructions are called "software". A computer without software is a doorstop. Patenting a particular collection of instructions (even if they do something really, really interesting) is, in effect, patenting the use of a thing for its intended purpose.
It would be akin to patenting "a method for dialling my phone number" and then going after royalties every time my phone rings. Or "a method for using an automobile to get to work" and suing everyone in rushhour traffic.
Is this nit for real? Let's start with the Treo - poor design aside, the light flashes green to indicate that the phone has a connection to a native tower. It flashes amber to indicate a connection to a roaming tower. Turning off the phone turns off the light. It says all of this in the manual.
The lights on the keyboard indicate information that some of us consider important. Ditto for the cable modem. Ditto for all of his other appliances. I half suspect that some of the lights he's bitching about are called "clocks", and that they would stop flashing "12:00" if he learned to set them.
I can't help him with the mood lighting or case design on the XPS other than to point out that there are other viable options besides L337 64m0R rigs that are overpriced and all about - get this - "flash". I can help him with auxilliary lighting to make his keyboard more visible in the dark. They're called "lamps". Turn one on.
this (in hat form) also works wonders to keep the secret reptilian-government streetlight cameras from reading my thoughts
Hah! That's exactly what they want you to believe. The truth is, at the frequencies the scanners use, foil hats actually enhance the scan. To protect your thoughts, what you really want to use is a conical cap constructed of felt, with a large flat brim. Why do you think the wizards wore them?
Induction is nothing new. Submersible waterpumps use inductive impellers. Every chemistry lab I've ever been in has used both inductive mixers and inductive heaters. This is all established, stable technology.
Even inductive charging is nothing new - I've had a toothbrush that does this for years.
So when I read articles about inductive mats saving me from my rat's nest of cables, don't think I'm not enthusiastic about the prospect. My concern, though, which I haven't yet seen addressed adequately, is what sort of an effect this kind of inductive magnetic field is going to have on my sensitive electronics and their magnetic storage. I have to say that I'm a lot more than merely hesitant to lay my laptop down on such a device. Everything in me says - no, screams - "You're throwing your hard drive to the wolves!"
I'm not thinking such a mat is throwing off gauss like a bulk eraser, but it doesn't have to. It might not wipe a drive clean in a single sitting, but I can't imagine that prolonged exposure is not doing minute, cumulative, and ultimately fatal, damage to the drive. Or am I missing something?
I had that happen once. Richard Gere is a pussy.
All I can say for sure is that there's no correct answer to the question, "Does this make me look fat?"
Fortunately, I found I can distract her long enough with a piece of cheesecake to make a break for the door.
I see- you don't buy into the story line of the game. Which kind of ruins the experience of the game for me- might as well just be target practice at that point. If you can't suspend disbelief enough to consider the story line of the game, what is the point of playing it?
erm... no, that's not exactly what I said.
It might be that we have different working definitions of "suspend disbelief", but my ability to enjoy a story does not hinge on my accepting it as factual. Enjoying a story doesn't mean it has to be, nor does it make it, true. So, yes, I can fire up GTA, enjoy the story of a thug beating people up and stealing cars, without believing that anybody is actually being hurt or robbed. And, when I shut the game off, no desire to beat people up or steal cars follows me out. Much the same way as when I close the latest Harry Potter novel, while I immensely enjoy reading the books, I carry away no belief that wizards actually roam the world.
Can you explain the apparent contradiction between these two paragraphs? How can you play a FPS game WITHOUT entertaining the notion of doing harm to others (irrespective of the other forms of fictional media)? If you let the thought in, you've entertained it- if only in your immagination you HAVE indeed pointed a weapon more dangerous than a SuperSoaker at another human being- certainly the big gun in Wolfenstien 3D would qualify, and the targets in that game WERE representations of human beings. [emphasis mine]
Your name wouldn't happen to be Jack Thompson, would it?
Nevermind - I'll play along. A representation of a thing is NOT the thing. A poster of a lamborghini is not actually the beloved Italian sports car. The weather charts on the evening news are not actually the weather. A voodoo doll of Bob is not Bob.
There is case law that speaks almost directly to this point in regards to people selling pictures of PS3's on eBay.
But, to the point of the actual question at hand, I see no contradiction. I am under no impression whatsoever that the bundle of pixels representing the BadGuy is really a human, nor that the bundle of pixels representing the BFG is really a weapon of any sort. I am under no impression that shooting my imaginary gun at the imaginary BadGuy does any actual damage to anyone, anywhere, just as I have never noticed that damage done to my in-game avatar actually maps to injuries on my physical being. (just as I am not under the impression, for instance, that eating a mushroom while kicking a turtle will give me the ability to fly) There is a very, very large disconnect between a video game and reality. I see an inability to see this distinction as evidence of a troubled mind. If you really do consider that line as thin as you say, I encourage you to talk about possible reasons with a professional.
So even if sildenafil citrate itself weren't patentable, use as a medication might still be.
True, true, but only for the disorder so listed in the method patent. Should you, noble researcher, find that said substance is also effective in treating, say, excessive ear hair, you are free to patent a method of treating that disorder.
You might even "discover" a "new" disorder - "stiffie impairment" - and patent a method for treating that. I'd like to think this wouldn't pass, but given some of the stuff that does get granted, who knows?
A atom is not patentable, a new type of medicine is nothing more than a particular arrangement of atoms, therefore that medicine should not be patentable.
A medicinal substance is not patentable, the method for producing the substance is. Find a different method to make the same molecule, and you too can sell viagra.
And worse, if you hold a patent and do not produce the item but merely hold other producers to ransom for royalties with it, then you're just a patent troll and a completely negative contributer to progress --- you should be penalized, not rewarded.
More to the point wrt submarine patents - if you patent something and sit on it waiting for someone else to innovate your idea into existance so you can troll them, that behavior should be taken as prima facia evidence that the idea is neither non-obvious or novel as even the patent holder expected that someone else would shortly bring the idea to market, if such hadn't already been done (*cough*VoIPerizon)
I still don't understand what makes algorithms and software OBVIOUSLY not patentable.
Simple - software is not patentable. Not "shouldn't be", it currently is NOT. Business methods are patentable, and all software patents are flown in under the "A method for" banner. It's a loophole, not design intent. Is that obvious enough for you?
I just don't see what makes software patents so different from other patents, and I haven't seen a single logical argument against software patents that doesn't involve circular reasoning.
Let's for the moment assume that business methods should be patentable. I don't exactly agree, but the court says, and their opinion counts for more than mine.
Patented things are supposed to be non-obvious and specific. Overly broad patents should be, and have been, struck down. So, you might patent a particular, novel, design for pointy things on a stick, but you cannot patent the blanket category "fork". This is as it should be.
But business patents are not granted this way, particularly when it comes to software. Amazon's patent does not cover "A method for processing sales with a single mouse click," it covers "Every method for processing sales with a single mouse click."
This is abuse of the system. This is not as it should be. And it is not circular.
Slashdot Mirror
So says you.
Bleeding edge is always a ridiculous expense. The people who are willing to be there already know who they are. That you even raise this question means that you are not.
OTOH, neither am I, but that's not the point. The point is, this is the first commercial volley of a new technology, which means that a few years hence it will be cheaper with even higher data densities.
Meaning, potentially, something like the entire run of every season of every Star Trek series ever... on one disc.
This is Slashdot! We're not doing your research for you! Get off your lazy ass and Google it yourself.
Oh - wait...
Dear FSM, yes I have. I'm still looking for a feedback button to tell them it's retarded.
Maybe that's what Google needs - a user moderation system. You know, something that'll keep a score for the page, maybe even let users flag it as "imformative" or "insightful". I seem to remember that somebody around here has something like that...
The cynic in me says the typewriter has already been invented ;-)
What would I say? I believe I'd start with "Wow!" Even if we were talking about a "mere" text editor, something just terribly trivial to implement on a modern PC, to build that as a mechanical device is daunting. If you start trying to engineer cut-n-paste and file saves, you're talking about a clockwork that would make the Babbage Engine look like a child's wind-up toy.
The fact of the matter is, even an old mechanical typewriter is a pretty intricate device. Lots of absurdly close tolerances strewn across some absurdly Rube Goldberg-esque linkages. Non-trivial, non-obvious, and definitely furthuring a great deal of things, not the least of which was the chance for the EveryMan to be able to produce professional-quality print without the investment in, or difficulty of running, a letterset press. This is what patents are for.
Now, assuming I designed said machine before any other word processor was built, would I have the moral right to patent this machine?Absolutely! As I said, you would be elevating the art of clockwork assemblies to just a mind-bending extreme. Even if it weren't practical, it would be studied for years to come.
But that patent covers your solution - your device. It is not meant to cover the entire category "editing text". If another enterprising young mind finds their own solution to the problem, and it does not use your mechanisms, he is free to build, patent, and market that as well. This is called "competition", and it is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
I sense that this is the expected answer, and that the question is meant to lead directly into the followup, "Why then not software that does the same thing?" This is a perfectly reasonable question. It is the question I would ask were I on the other side of the debate. It is a question which I will come back to later in another post. Sorry :-)
Darn tootin'!
Oh, wait - is this still part of the Falwell thread?
I'll start with the easy question first:
Also, what do you think of design patents?Redundant. Trademark already covers a lot of this territory. These patents do nothing "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", the Constitutional principle upon which all other patent law is supposed to be based. That said, I really want to hate design patents, but the truth is I just don't care that much about them. Perhaps merely because they haven't been as flagrantly abused (yet) as some other categories of patents, I don't know.
Moving on... actually, I can't move on just yet. I want to answer the rest of your post, and I will, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll try to come back to this tonight. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the question.
That's just it. I'm not. I was being snippy at this statement: All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.
So, let's have it. Program your computer into a spinning wheel. No mechanical apparatus, just pound away at those keys until it starts spitting out yarn. I'll give you as long as you want. Hell, I'll sit in the mall under a neon sign that says "I am the walrus" knitting you a sweater out of that yarn if you can do it. (I fully expect I'll never have to learn to knit)
But "at some level of abstraction", sure your computer is a spinning wheel. So I'm a walrus. We both breathe air, grow hair, have teeth, heart, lungs, liver, skin... isn't it obvious? Hey, you're a walrus, too!
This may be showing my hand a bit, but I don't think that would bother me. I am not an advocate for completely abolishing patents, though such folks do exist. I'm more of an agnostic on the point.
After all, a gear is an "instruction" for the conversion or translation of angular motion. All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.Oh, come off it. This is the most tortured argument - look, at some level of abstraction, I am a walrus. KooKooKachoo. At some level of detail, I am not. I suppose you have trouble distinguishing a real car from a Gran Turismo disc?
Technically, they didn't. Software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable as software. Software patents all come in under the ruling that allows business methods to be patented. That's why they all begin "A method for [...]" and go to such lingual gymnastics to avoid using the word "algorithm" ever.
It might seem that this point is splitting a hair, but this happens to be a very important hair.
A computer is a general-purpose machine. A computer's purpose is to process an organized collection of instructions to do a specific thing. These instructions are called "software". A computer without software is a doorstop. Patenting a particular collection of instructions (even if they do something really, really interesting) is, in effect, patenting the use of a thing for its intended purpose.
It would be akin to patenting "a method for dialling my phone number" and then going after royalties every time my phone rings. Or "a method for using an automobile to get to work" and suing everyone in rushhour traffic.
Is this nit for real? Let's start with the Treo - poor design aside, the light flashes green to indicate that the phone has a connection to a native tower. It flashes amber to indicate a connection to a roaming tower. Turning off the phone turns off the light. It says all of this in the manual.
The lights on the keyboard indicate information that some of us consider important. Ditto for the cable modem. Ditto for all of his other appliances. I half suspect that some of the lights he's bitching about are called "clocks", and that they would stop flashing "12:00" if he learned to set them.
I can't help him with the mood lighting or case design on the XPS other than to point out that there are other viable options besides L337 64m0R rigs that are overpriced and all about - get this - "flash". I can help him with auxilliary lighting to make his keyboard more visible in the dark. They're called "lamps". Turn one on.
Hah! That's exactly what they want you to believe. The truth is, at the frequencies the scanners use, foil hats actually enhance the scan. To protect your thoughts, what you really want to use is a conical cap constructed of felt, with a large flat brim. Why do you think the wizards wore them?
hey, HEY! I compensate with shiny sports cars, you insensitive clod!
I think it depends on the merchendise. Ever been in a jewelry store?
I do, actually. I also know that, as part of the device, the fields the generate are taken into account when designing the device.
Floppy drives have their own magnets, too, but I have never seen a disk erased by such. I have seen a disk done in by environmental EM, though.
I seriously doubt this gives off a strong enough magnetic force to damage your equipment.Perhaps not. I hope not. Still, it's enough for me to wonder, and want to proceed with caution.
Aww, c'mon, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than something like that happening!
Induction is nothing new. Submersible waterpumps use inductive impellers. Every chemistry lab I've ever been in has used both inductive mixers and inductive heaters. This is all established, stable technology.
Even inductive charging is nothing new - I've had a toothbrush that does this for years.
So when I read articles about inductive mats saving me from my rat's nest of cables, don't think I'm not enthusiastic about the prospect. My concern, though, which I haven't yet seen addressed adequately, is what sort of an effect this kind of inductive magnetic field is going to have on my sensitive electronics and their magnetic storage. I have to say that I'm a lot more than merely hesitant to lay my laptop down on such a device. Everything in me says - no, screams - "You're throwing your hard drive to the wolves!"
I'm not thinking such a mat is throwing off gauss like a bulk eraser, but it doesn't have to. It might not wipe a drive clean in a single sitting, but I can't imagine that prolonged exposure is not doing minute, cumulative, and ultimately fatal, damage to the drive. Or am I missing something?
I had that happen once. Richard Gere is a pussy. All I can say for sure is that there's no correct answer to the question, "Does this make me look fat?" Fortunately, I found I can distract her long enough with a piece of cheesecake to make a break for the door.
Really? I could've sworn I read about a trial run on standard DVD's just a couple weeks back...
erm... no, that's not exactly what I said.
It might be that we have different working definitions of "suspend disbelief", but my ability to enjoy a story does not hinge on my accepting it as factual. Enjoying a story doesn't mean it has to be, nor does it make it, true. So, yes, I can fire up GTA, enjoy the story of a thug beating people up and stealing cars, without believing that anybody is actually being hurt or robbed. And, when I shut the game off, no desire to beat people up or steal cars follows me out. Much the same way as when I close the latest Harry Potter novel, while I immensely enjoy reading the books, I carry away no belief that wizards actually roam the world.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Jack Thompson, would it?
Nevermind - I'll play along. A representation of a thing is NOT the thing. A poster of a lamborghini is not actually the beloved Italian sports car. The weather charts on the evening news are not actually the weather. A voodoo doll of Bob is not Bob.
There is case law that speaks almost directly to this point in regards to people selling pictures of PS3's on eBay.
But, to the point of the actual question at hand, I see no contradiction. I am under no impression whatsoever that the bundle of pixels representing the BadGuy is really a human, nor that the bundle of pixels representing the BFG is really a weapon of any sort. I am under no impression that shooting my imaginary gun at the imaginary BadGuy does any actual damage to anyone, anywhere, just as I have never noticed that damage done to my in-game avatar actually maps to injuries on my physical being. (just as I am not under the impression, for instance, that eating a mushroom while kicking a turtle will give me the ability to fly) There is a very, very large disconnect between a video game and reality. I see an inability to see this distinction as evidence of a troubled mind. If you really do consider that line as thin as you say, I encourage you to talk about possible reasons with a professional.
True, true, but only for the disorder so listed in the method patent. Should you, noble researcher, find that said substance is also effective in treating, say, excessive ear hair, you are free to patent a method of treating that disorder.
You might even "discover" a "new" disorder - "stiffie impairment" - and patent a method for treating that. I'd like to think this wouldn't pass, but given some of the stuff that does get granted, who knows?
A medicinal substance is not patentable, the method for producing the substance is. Find a different method to make the same molecule, and you too can sell viagra.
More to the point wrt submarine patents - if you patent something and sit on it waiting for someone else to innovate your idea into existance so you can troll them, that behavior should be taken as prima facia evidence that the idea is neither non-obvious or novel as even the patent holder expected that someone else would shortly bring the idea to market, if such hadn't already been done (*cough*VoIPerizon)
Simple - software is not patentable. Not "shouldn't be", it currently is NOT. Business methods are patentable, and all software patents are flown in under the "A method for" banner. It's a loophole, not design intent. Is that obvious enough for you?
I just don't see what makes software patents so different from other patents, and I haven't seen a single logical argument against software patents that doesn't involve circular reasoning.Let's for the moment assume that business methods should be patentable. I don't exactly agree, but the court says, and their opinion counts for more than mine.
Patented things are supposed to be non-obvious and specific. Overly broad patents should be, and have been, struck down. So, you might patent a particular, novel, design for pointy things on a stick, but you cannot patent the blanket category "fork". This is as it should be.
But business patents are not granted this way, particularly when it comes to software. Amazon's patent does not cover "A method for processing sales with a single mouse click," it covers "Every method for processing sales with a single mouse click."
This is abuse of the system. This is not as it should be. And it is not circular.