|
|
|
| Authored by: rebentisch on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
I don't believe in the "software is math" formula but maybe Wirth was
right when he said writing software is engineering a machine. What is protected
by the patent system is not that useful as running code, but usually a mere
reinstatement of the problem a program solves. And any program solves multiple
abstract problems.
So the actual shortcoming is that the object awarded protection by the patent
system is not the bottleneck of the software engineering task, but the mere
"obvious".
And here again it is an old prejudice over the centuries that abstract solutions
are more valuable than tangible solutions, cmp. N. Hartmann: Das Problem des
geistigen Seins. That strategic leadership is perceived as more important than
tangible improvements, that architecture is more valuable than building etc.
Today we are free to admit that the genius of the field marshall is less
relevant than the technological advancement of the weaponry.
The appreciation of patents also expresses arrogance towards the art of
programming. Abstraction translates also into triviality.
I could describe in general terms the process to sent a rocket to Mars. I cannot
engineer a suitable rocket and I do not know how to actually sent a rocket to
Mars. The process description is without merits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
