Authored by: darrellb on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
I disagree. Case law doesn't make sense because plaintiffs, defendants,
lawyers, and courts ignore reality in favor of legal arguments, strategy, and
tactics. Reality, particularly physical and technical reality, often are
ignored
by everyone involved in a legal matter.
Can anyone say that people don't often ignore legal reality in favor of their
own?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
But, as lots of people have been misquoted as saying:
"Who's going to fix it: If not me, then who"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tyro on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
You are a little bit more cynical than I am...but not much.
There is clearly no basis for claiming that programming a computer makes it a
new decision. The *ONLY* reason for reaching that conclusion is that that is
the conclusion that is desired. The arguments have no plausibility whatsoever.
Note I didn't speak about accuracy, which they also lack. But plausibility.
This is the kind of conclusion that could not be reached by a well-intentioned
error. I'm not sure what the definition of malice is, so I can't really say it
must have been malicious.
The question in my mind is whether the judge making the decision did it out of
lack of attention, or because it was politically (or economically) convenient.
I can't believe that he did it because he believed the decision was correct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
is the first step to getting the criminal, give-money-to-the-rich scheme
*stopped*.
Until the general public, and new lawyers/judges coming through the law schools,
realize that software patents are a bit fat scam, it's rather hard to get the
scam shut down.
Once they realize it, we can start talking about how to stop the entrenched
scammers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
I agree completely. An algorithm is just a series of
mathematical computations. A software program is just a
series of algorithms. A general purpose computer takes a
series of inputs, alters them mathematically, and outputs the
changes. The only way to make a case for software patents is
to ignore the underlying reality and create the legal fiction
that software alters the machine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
I agree completely. An algorithm is just a series of
mathematical computations. A software program is just a
series of algorithms. A general purpose computer takes a
series of inputs, alters them mathematically, and outputs the
changes. The only way to make a case for software patents is
to ignore the underlying reality and create the legal fiction
that software alters the machine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|