|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
The consensus here on Groklaw is that software patents are bad. We know this,
we see this, and we struggle to convince others. I've never been comfortable
with the "Software is Math" explanation. I'm not disputing the truth of that
statement but I have two problems with it:
- It does not help us
convince anyone that software patents are bad. It merely preaches to the
choir.
- It does not match the gut feelings we have about software
patents. We know intuitively that software patents are bad. One reason they
are bad is that "Software is Math" but that reason is not related to our gut
reaction and certainty. For example PJ was convinced software patents are bad
well before she was able to grasp the "Software is Math" explanation. Therefore
it is unlikely that her gut feeling was related to "Software is Math".
I'm
proposing a different way of explaining to the washed masses why software
patents are bad. This way is much simpler and does not require that we teach
our audience the foundations of abstract reasoning. BTW: here is a big problem
with that approach. It would probably be easier to teach the audience
programming and if they learned programming, they would develop the same gut
feelings and intuition that we have about software patents. So, in a very real
sense, the "Software is Math" approach is replacing a difficult problem with an
even more difficult problem.
The new approach is in my original post. I try
to explain it a bit more below. I 100% agree with you that Samsung should *not*
base their defense on the idea that software patents are bad. I never suggested
they should. My comment was more general. After looking closely at the
rubber-banding idea, I took a step back and took another stab at explaining
*why* software patents are bad. Please take a look at it in that light and let
me know what you think.
I read the exhibit in the 2nd update where an expert
for Apple went on and on about how great the rubber-banding idea is. I agree
that it is a great idea. If Apple wants to patent a particular
implementation of that idea, that would be fine by me. I strongly object to
allowing them to have a monopoly on the idea itself. Software patents are bad
because the useful ones protect ideas and algorithms, not inventions. Software
implementations are already protected by copyright which means that software
patents, almost by definition, protect ideas and algorithms. There is a lot
more to software than algorithms but software patents are exclusively about
algorithms. Algorithms are ideas and should not be patentable.
PS:
Thank you Ian Al! I'm reminded of a quote by an author but I've been unable to
find it for many years and I'm not sure who the author was. I think it was
Conrad or London, but I'm not certain. The gist of the quote is that if just
one person agrees with me then it increases my belief in myself ten-fold.
Maybe someone here is familiar with the quote and can point me to it. I will
write it down this time.
---
In a time of universal deceit -- telling
the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
So it is sensible to act like Don Quixote and fight windmills believing them to
be dragons.
Isn't it better to be as Sancho Panza and see clearly.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
