I think your comment was very insightful -- and just as the politicians do what they do because it draws media attention, the media do what they do because it draws our attention.
I think this is just how evolution works -- for example, humans weren't really designed for upright walking, but here we are, and there isn't much point in complaining about it.
I do agree, though, that it's a bit silly to have all these fancy multi-gigahertz dual-core processors, with gigs of RAM and even more gigs of HD space, and all they do is fire up web browsers. (Also silly is hearing these Web 2.0 people go bonkers when they finally manage to -- almost! as long as you're using Browser X or Y! and you don't mind waiting! -- reinvent UI widgets that have been around for ages in conventional apps.)
Well you're in better company than I am at this point -- the PTO used to agree with me, but now it agrees with you.
I think the problem with saying that business processes are patentable simply by virtue of being finite automata is that just about anything would qualify here -- e.g., using assembly lines in manufacturing, or routing calls to the appropriate representative, or offering discounts to college students and senior citizens, or making a sandwich with the mayo directly on the bread to prevent tomato-moisture from seeping through and making the bread soggy.
The effect is, IMHO, the opposite of what we want... instead of incentivizing innovation, it stifles it, because every new business will be forced to undergo extensive (and expensive!) research to make sure they're not violating these kinds of mayo-directly-on-bread patents.
(You can argue that the "non-obviousness" requirement to patents would prevent this, but I think there's ample evidence that this requirement is construed so narrowly as to be more or less meaningless.)
I preferred the old "if it's just an idea, you can't patent it" way of thinking.
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment?
If a company comes up with a new way to manufacture widgets -- a new widget-making machine, for instance -- and you're talking about a competitor stealing the construction plans for the machine, then I think this is a different situation, and far less objectionable.
But when we're talking about business process innovation -- finding new ways to store inventory, or manage relationships with vendors and customers, or hire and retain employees, or deliver goods and services -- then I think the argument is less clear. Presumably you do these things simply to derive a competitive advantage, and the additional profits you expect to earn are incentive enough.
It used to be that the PTO wouldn't grant patents for business methods, because they saw them as abstract ideas -- this all changed with the State Street case.
See, once you inject Iraq, the conversation becomes about Iraq and not about Global Warming...
Actually, no, we're all *capable* of staying on topic here, just as the grandparent did -- and please don't suggest that oil in the Middle East (and the economic implications thereof) isn't relevant to this discussion. That's just plain ignorant.
When was it difficult for end users to create web content?
IIRC, I used a browser that supported HTTP PUT way back in 1995. And even the most technology-illiterate people in my office were able to use FrontPage and Netscape Composer in the late 90's.
Oh, you want a free web-based site management tool? Nothing wrong with good ol' GeoCities.
True, the resulting sites didn't always look cool to the latte-drinking, tortoise-framed-glasses-and-black-turtleneck crowd, but the Internet would have been better off without those idiots, anyway.
Most of these suggested "Web 2.0 innovations" were really Web 1.0 innovations, and the rest were Internet 1.0 innovations.
No, don't be silly... they just took away their high thread-count sheets and artisan olive oils, and forced them to drink -- shudder! -- domestic beer.
That's all... it certainly wasn't the case that people at the top of the US Government knew exactly what was going on at prisons such as Abu Ghraib, and in fact ordered it, no matter what you may have heard from dozens of soldiers who were actually there.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your comment was very insightful -- and just as the politicians do what they do because it draws media attention, the media do what they do because it draws our attention.
I've seen a lot of moronic comments modded "insightful" over the years, but this one might take the cake.
I think this is just how evolution works -- for example, humans weren't really designed for upright walking, but here we are, and there isn't much point in complaining about it.
I do agree, though, that it's a bit silly to have all these fancy multi-gigahertz dual-core processors, with gigs of RAM and even more gigs of HD space, and all they do is fire up web browsers. (Also silly is hearing these Web 2.0 people go bonkers when they finally manage to -- almost! as long as you're using Browser X or Y! and you don't mind waiting! -- reinvent UI widgets that have been around for ages in conventional apps.)
But I'm old...
Well you're in better company than I am at this point -- the PTO used to agree with me, but now it agrees with you.
I think the problem with saying that business processes are patentable simply by virtue of being finite automata is that just about anything would qualify here -- e.g., using assembly lines in manufacturing, or routing calls to the appropriate representative, or offering discounts to college students and senior citizens, or making a sandwich with the mayo directly on the bread to prevent tomato-moisture from seeping through and making the bread soggy.
The effect is, IMHO, the opposite of what we want... instead of incentivizing innovation, it stifles it, because every new business will be forced to undergo extensive (and expensive!) research to make sure they're not violating these kinds of mayo-directly-on-bread patents.
(You can argue that the "non-obviousness" requirement to patents would prevent this, but I think there's ample evidence that this requirement is construed so narrowly as to be more or less meaningless.)
I preferred the old "if it's just an idea, you can't patent it" way of thinking.
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment?
If a company comes up with a new way to manufacture widgets -- a new widget-making machine, for instance -- and you're talking about a competitor stealing the construction plans for the machine, then I think this is a different situation, and far less objectionable.
But when we're talking about business process innovation -- finding new ways to store inventory, or manage relationships with vendors and customers, or hire and retain employees, or deliver goods and services -- then I think the argument is less clear. Presumably you do these things simply to derive a competitive advantage, and the additional profits you expect to earn are incentive enough.
It used to be that the PTO wouldn't grant patents for business methods, because they saw them as abstract ideas -- this all changed with the State Street case.
See, once you inject Iraq, the conversation becomes about Iraq and not about Global Warming...
Actually, no, we're all *capable* of staying on topic here, just as the grandparent did -- and please don't suggest that oil in the Middle East (and the economic implications thereof) isn't relevant to this discussion. That's just plain ignorant.
Huh?
When was it difficult for end users to create web content?
IIRC, I used a browser that supported HTTP PUT way back in 1995. And even the most technology-illiterate people in my office were able to use FrontPage and Netscape Composer in the late 90's.
Oh, you want a free web-based site management tool? Nothing wrong with good ol' GeoCities.
True, the resulting sites didn't always look cool to the latte-drinking, tortoise-framed-glasses-and-black-turtleneck crowd, but the Internet would have been better off without those idiots, anyway.
Most of these suggested "Web 2.0 innovations" were really Web 1.0 innovations, and the rest were Internet 1.0 innovations.
Now if this is a funny rant, you got me, but I really think you mean what you say.
Really? Even the whole "gouging of eyes" thing didn't clue you in...?
No, don't be silly... they just took away their high thread-count sheets and artisan olive oils, and forced them to drink -- shudder! -- domestic beer.
That's all... it certainly wasn't the case that people at the top of the US Government knew exactly what was going on at prisons such as Abu Ghraib, and in fact ordered it, no matter what you may have heard from dozens of soldiers who were actually there.