|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 02:42 PM EST |
The "software is math" argument is not, by itself, sufficient
to overturn the current patent regime.
But it's a necessary part of the arsenal of arguments that
need to be brought to bear.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM EST |
| Are you saying there are "material objects" which are NOT made up of
atoms?
Software is all math, entirely math, from top to bottom. It's math
all the way down. So if the law says "math is not supposed to be patented",
then logically all of these software patents are garbage and should be thrown
out, and I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out.
Plus, the fact
that they are allowing patents on mathematics IS dangerous because entire fields
of endevour end up being blocked off by patents. They're supposed to protect a
particular machine that was invented, but instead they grant the first person to
apply a monopoly on the entire idea, often a monopoly that covers any
possible solution to a problem rather than the one specific solution the
applicant actually invented.
As a programmer, I hate software patents, they
are like land-mines strewn around waiting to blow up unknowing innovators who
think up an idea and try to build a startup business around it, without
realizing that someone else was already granted a monopoly on it.
I want to
see them outlawed, so that I never have to worry about them again. The burst of
innovation that would follow would also be quite great. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:17 PM EST |
"Sterile" is the right word here I think. This isn't a critique of
whether the argument is correct or whether or not it is well-argued. The
question ultimately should be, is this argument persuasive to those who
ultimately will make this decision (or not).
It is ultimately a policy questions and policies are decided based on
considerations of conflicting interests. Policy is not decided based on
syllogisms. Legislators are not theorem provers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:28 PM EST |
The legislator didn't legislate using the word "software". There is no
point arguing there is a difference between my definition and theirs because
there is no definition of software in the patent statute.
I have put a clear boundary on what the slogan "software is math"
means. This boundary is within the abstract idea exception in patent law. I
don't ask for a new law. I ask for a recognition of facts that are actually
true.
In case you haven't noticed, the argument in this article doesn't rely on
whether or not software is math. I just use the same underlying facts and place
them in the context of semiotics.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:48 PM EST |
You state:
The high level human work may be just painting
something on screen which is then translated to a postscript program, and after
some more levels to bit flipping and finally to ink dots;
However -
Software does not create ink dots. At least, not ink dots on paper.
I
challenge you to take a device without a printer and print a single sheet with
anything on it. You cannot. The best you can do is display a sheet with
something on it on the monitor.
The printer - the physical device which
you can then send electronic signals to - is responsible for the printing.
Sure, you can change the software on a modern day printer to print something
different then previous. On an older printer you'd have to change the physical
faceplates.
The software does not - and never has - "printed a dot on
paper".
Used by a person to instruct the printer to print a dot? Sure.
But it's never done it itself - ever!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:07 PM EST |
"Mathematicians do their best to have a precise and unique definition of
the words they use"
Just like software programmers then..[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:34 PM EST |
Take away the atoms and there's no computer there..
Take away the
mathematics and there's no computer there..
It's even described in the
name computer![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:02 PM EST |
I've seen this same bovine waste product before, almost certainly
from the same troll. It can't be reasoned with, or convinced, and
will just keep mindlessly spreading the same bull until PJ puts a
stop to it.
For the rest of us, though, the difference is that atoms are naturally
occurring physical objects with many properties, some of which we
haven't even discovered yet. Bits are artificially created abstractions
having only one property, with two mutually exclusive values. There
is nothing more to be known about bits; the definition is absolute,
specific, and unambiguous. It is this quality that allows them to be
used in mathematical operations, like software. Atoms are much too
imprecise to be used in mathematical operations, unless we ignore
most of their properties.
----------------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
