|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
Yes, but there wasn't anything "immediate" about it... We've been
explaining for two days now and we're no closer to getting through than
we were at the beginning.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
Most of what you say is reasonable, but...
I really doubt that the physicist you're talking about is reasonable - he could
have ASPD or may even be a psychopath. Passing those tests is not so difficult
if you really want to, I'm sure. ;)
The arguments about software being maths and whether or not software patents are
valid under current US law doesn't really touch me that closely since I'm not in
the US (and we generally don't have stand-alone software patents here). I do,
however, understand quite well how both software and common law legal systems
work. The standard that the USSC is supposed to apply on matters of law is
correctness. Precedent doesn't trump correctness. Precedents get thrown out,
if not all the time, then often enough as understanding changes. Unfortunately
the USSC is much more politicized than their counterparts in other common law
jurisdictions and often intentionally lose sight of this, IMHO.
I don't see Prof. Risch as an outlier in terms of a law prof. or lawyer who
pretends to be listening to an opposing viewpoint with an open mind when what
they are actually doing is trying to hone arguments against the position they
are purporting to listen to - it happens all the time. At first I thought that
Prof. Risch was actually making an effort to be open minded, but after two days
or reading his doublespeak I have come to question that.
I don't know why you would have been offended by the flat earth comment - it
wasn't meant to offend but rather to point out that there is no need to agree to
disagree with someone reasonable when they are demonstrably wrong. If you do,
you are conceding that they are not reasonable after all, and must have a
religious belief of some kind - you are writing off their opinion as
superstition and wishful thinking that comes from either ignorance or a defect
in their cognitive faculties.
That said, I think that Prof. Risch's position probably comes from a cognitive
defect that both was intentionally trained into him in law school (I have seen
it first hand) and comes from his own self-interest (whether or not he
prosecutes patents, he derives his income from the system, and the more
all-encompassing and controversial the system, the better for him).
This whole issue is more sad than anything else, really, except when the US
patent system has significant effects outside it's borders, and then it's both
tragic and oppressive.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
