|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 01:00 AM EDT |
I suspect that Richie spends almost all him time talking to lawyers or others
involved in the law. He visits places like patently-O which advocate insane
extreme positions on patents and exclude alternative points of view. He attends
conferences where people who don't want software patents are explicitly
excluded. In such places and among such people he is probably regarded as a bit
of a radical.
I hope coming here and experiencing the true opinions (and anger) of people who
actually write software might cause him to realise that he has been living in a
bubble of like minded people insulated from the real world, and that far from
being a liberal on these matters, he doesn't go NEARLY far enough. Assumptions
which passed without comment in those other places have proved incapable of
standing up to sustained questioning from sceptical people who know what they
are talking about when it comes to software.
I hope he goes away and engages in a bit of a rethink.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
I appreciate your response, and I would love to write a long reply to you
explaining how I came to have this perspective, but I post anonymously for a
reason and I can't explain it in this forum. But I'm glad to see that you've
rightfully taken some of my rather glib statements with a good does of salt. :)
I will comment on one thing, though, regarding "defective cognition"
AKA invalid reasoning: more than once Prof. Risch made statements to the effect
that while any calculation you can perform in your head or with the assistance
of only pencil and paper is unpatentable under the law, he believes that there
must be some kinds of calculations that you can perform in your head or with the
assistance of only pencil and paper that must be patentable under the law. He
was called out on this more than once, yet continued to make the same assertion
in slightly different language. That's the kind of thing I was referring to
that is no so uncommon to find in people with legal educations.
At least he's not quite as bad as the law professor I encountered recently who
claimed that a syllogism in the form of:
Some M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore some S are P.
is valid if you assume that all the statements refer to the "same
population", without having also to assume that all M are S. Now that is
some seriously defective cognition.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
