|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Respectfully - regarding 'incorrect and easily correctable'
Start with the following definitions and assumptions:
1. Incorrect: provable by logic independent of viewpoint
2. Easily correctable/obvious: obvious to a person of normal
intelligence if the statement is presented and correct.
3. Intelligence: lawyers, including mritche, are of normal
intelligence and will therefore readily agree to obvious
arguments.
Then - given that 'software is maths' was repeatedly
presented and is correct, and that the argument is fairly
obvious, and assuming that mritche is of normal
intelligence, mritche will agree that 'software is maths'
and therefore unpatentable.
He didn't. In fact, he very diplomatically indicated that
essentially no one outside Groklaw buys that obvious
argument and decided that the 'debate' had reached a point
of diminishing returns.
Therefore, one of those assumptions is wrong. Most
commentators appear to default to the assumption that some
variation of #3 is incorrect.
I disagree. I believe that #2 and #3 are both close to
correct. So, that leaves #1. It may be that we simply need
to agree to disagree and that you will continue to proceed
on the reasoning that anyone believing that software is
patentable under US law is either cognitively deficient or
dishonest. I suspect that that assumption will not be
productive, long-term, but it isn't something I can change.
I do suggest that keeping an open mind regarding the
validity of assumption (1) might be productive. It might
not be too...it takes a certain mindset to be a
revolutionary.
(I'm not even sure that software patents are totally bad. I
can picture a world where IBM and a few other businesses
sold dedicated systems that allowed only fixed, preloaded
software. Software patents, to some extent, contributed to
avoiding that world.)
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
