|
|
|
| Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
Well written indeed. I'd suggest one more reference ... "Godel, Escher,
Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", by Douglas Hofstaedter. He has several
chapters on predicate logic as symbolic manipulation.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
I can't file this myself. But the article is released under Groklaw standard
creative commons license. If someone wants to file it he is welcome.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: egan on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
Even the patent obsessed judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit should be able to understand this explanation and argument against
software patents.
Groklaw should file it as an amicus curiae brief.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
Bravo! Insightful and well written.
As a beginning computer science student, this made a lot of sense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
A nice article here, and it helps make the case for why software is
copyrightable but not patentable (is anything else subject to both forms of
protection?).
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
This is the clearest statement yet that I have seen about when software
shouldn't
be patentable. The problem is to make the CAFC judges see the logic. For that I
think making a convincing argument, as here is not sufficient; the problem at
least in part has been judicial laziness such that ``legal facts'' are accepted
that
are in contradiction with ``computer facts'', simply based on bad analogies and
strength of argument made by other lawyers to lawyers (judges). To nail down
their understanding of what is being said a re-analysis of four or five key
cases
showing their thinking and this thinking would be needed. I hope fervently that
PoIR will provide such a case book analysis.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
No, the judges don't need to see this. This is not a "brief" nor is
it brief nor succinct not comprehensible to the layman.
The topic should be addressed in a manner that appointed judges in their elder
years will be able to comprehend well enough on which to rule.
This is not the droid you're looking for.
E[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
