I can think of a few reasons for this:
In the context of this discussion, your mind does not need to be made aware that
reality is different from your beliefs, and so no one is bothering to explore
and expose your baggage in that regard.
You may think that you agree with people here that software patents are too
broad, but that is only an accident and not a fundamental agreement (for the
most part). If software patents were incredibly narrow and difficult to get,
you would no longer think that they were too broad. Yet, if this were the case
it would not change the opinion of most of the people that you think you agree
with, that if any software patent exists, it is by definition too broad.
So there is no real principled agreement, only a concession on your part that
those who believe as you do have probably gone too far. This is what you have
mistaken for agreement.
To put it another way: if you believe that kids should be taught to believe in
Santa Claus but not the tooth fairy (because that is just going too far!), and I
believe that children should not be lied to about the existence of fanciful
mythological beings by their parents, just how real or significant would our
agreement that children should not be taught to believe in the tooth fairy be?
Did you try to take my advice and have a good, honest, introspective look at
your assumption that some math, somewhere must be patentable because you feel
that it must? It sure looks like you assume the existence of Santa Claus from
here. ;)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| "I apparently have no baggage"?
Everyone has baggage (when it become
religious, absent
logic... mental mindsets). And, due to this, above all
other reasons, humanity, suffers, due to the baggage.
Like Brian Cantwell
Smith said (if you watched the entire
video) in the video, at one point, that
we might need for a
generation to pass, to understand the digital myth to be
falsely worshiped.
Someday, when replaced by a new generation, only
then,
can we can hatch out of our cocoon into the new
butterfly of understanding,
...by virtue of a fresh new
look, only THEN, will our "locked-in"
misunderstanding
(baggage) be finally seen by historians for what it
is.
Software patents, like the digital myth, then will be seen
for what
they are. Silly (and a waste of time, but worse
very damaging to have allowed
monopoly where it should never
have been allowed).
Your position, from the
point of view of future generations,
will be seen for what it is, silly.
We
will move on. Galileo (along with other great
scientists of the past would
agree that software patents are
math, and that software patents as a monopoly
is wrong) ...
now his opinion formerly a sin, is now ok in the eyes of the
Catholic Church (but
they still will not put up his statue), is an prime
example of your
current mindset.
Wikipedia - Creative Commons License applies
to
the quote (see link above)...
"On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II
expressed regret for
how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a
declaration
acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church
tribunal
that judged the scientific positions of Galileo
Galilei, as the result of a
study conducted by the
Pontifical Council for Culture.[145][146] In March 2008
the
head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo,
announced a
plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of
him inside the Vatican
walls.[147] In December of the same
year, during events to mark the 400th
anniversary of
Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict
XVI
praised his contributions to astronomy.[148] A month
later, however, the head
of the Pontifical Council for
Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the
plan to erect
a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been
suspended.[149]"
Someday, others, like you, will see the error of
your pro-
software patent "beliefs". But, even then, down deep, you
will
still, feel like the reality, "goes against" your
historical, learned
perception, your church.
It's math. Galileo, would agree.
Are we going
to have to wait for whole generations to pass
to get to the understanding we
will arrive at anyway,
someday (and what will be the historical view of your
opinions at that point in time)?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
