|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
Heh. I mostly found him amusing. And slightly disturbing.
ASPD and psychopathy are unlikely. I have wondered at the
surprisingly high incidence of Rapture-style Christian
beliefs in the nuclear weapons industry - but I don't know
that it is diagnosable. Worrisome, yes. (Y'know,
anecdotal, low numbers, but I'd have expected less that 20%)
Regarding precedent versus correctness, I hope you're
correct - but I suspect that, as long as the precedent is
'reasonable', it will be unlikely to be overturned. I
believe that this true for software patents.
Regarding Ritche, from listening to him, he struck me as
someone who has already thought long and hard about the
issue, concluded that software patents are not going away
and asked for advice on how to improve the current system.
At that point, he was deluged with 500 'software is maths'
messages and was actually extraordinarily patient while
being repeatedly lectured on how he 'just didn't get it.'
If he came across as two-faced, it was likely because he was
not frank about his actual opinion on the 'software is
maths' argument. (frankness would have violated forum
rules...)
I suspect that, from his perspective, the posts on that
topic were fairly similar to a series of well-intentioned
lawyers lecturing you fervently (and incorrectly) on proper
programming practices and then telling you that you are
obviously having understanding issues when you'd come to
them hoping for advice on copyrighting your software.
The problem is that perfectly reasonable people (myself
included) feel that the balance of the law is that software
patents are legal. Proceeding on the assumption that all
those people are either uninformed and/or dishonest is not
really smart - especially when they aren't. Lecturing them
repeatedly really isn't - as you'll alienate a large portion
of the 'really don't like software patents as they stand'
community.
The offence regarding the flat earth comment may have been
unintentional. If so, I will assume that comparing the
behavior of the 'software is maths' people to rude mental
patients also caused no offence given that it offers roughly
the same level of accuracy.
I do argue that 'agreeing to disagree' is most important
once a fundamental disagreement has been arrived at.
Sometimes one party is completely right and the other
completely wrong, but it doesn't matter - repeatedly
lecturing the incorrect party won't persuade them at all.
And also shows disrespect. Proceeding to issues on which
agreement is possible is preferable. The issue of disrepect
occurs when that persons says something like...'I've already
heard about X and made up my mind, I'm more interested in
Y.' and people choose to continue with X and start insulting
the person's mental functioning and integrity.
Explaining Ritche's opinions in terms of pathology is also
disrespectful. (cognitive defect??) In an analogous
fashion, I could simply explain insistence on the 'software
is maths' argument as a mixture of simple ignorance on the
part of computer programmers and a tendency towards mild
autism and social dysfunction. I could even top it off with
a disrespectful joke or two about keeping them out of
public. Of course, I won't do that - because it would be
rude. I might illustrate the point though.
Overall, in the last few postings, from you, I've heard
Ritsche described as dishonest and cognitively defective -
and you seem more reasonable than most of the postings. I
can, barely, see that a reasonable person might come to
those conclusions. But, I believe that a principled,
responsible person, even with those suspicions, would
proceed on an assumption of reasonable intelligence and
integrity. I'm a bit disappointed that an honest, motivated
person came to Groklaw and got this sort of feedback. If I
was him, I'd mostly file this as 'wasted time', ignore
everything, and move on. That result is a shame - because
there was the possibility for something more productive.
I do believe that Ritche's perspective - rather like many
Groklaw posters - is limited by his training and aptitudes.
So is mine. I'm just a bit different from most of the
people here. He's probably right about the 'software is
maths' section - that's law. I think he's somewhat wrong
about whether or not software patents, and patents in
general are net social goods. (I'm not sure about patents in
general.) I'm pretty sure he's wrong, wrong, wrong about
the effectiveness of modifying the application of precedents
in the legal system. I see that as at most an incremental
and insufficient change. Lawyers tend to believe that that
sort of tinkering is much more important than it actually
is. Good to do, maybe the easiest to do, but insufficient. I
also think that accepting that a patent suit will cost a
small business a few million to defend against an invalid
patent is a big, big problem. I'm sure I have gigantic
blind spots and ignorance as well - but I at least don't
operate under the assumption that anyone who disagrees with
me is as unreasonable as a flat earther. (I just think
they're wrong. :))
--Erwin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
