28-Mar-2024 19:08 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 71 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 71]
[Web] More on SW patentsANN.lu
Posted on 30-Aug-2003 11:36 GMT by Fabio Alemagna71 comments
View flat
View list

For whomerer doesn't oppose SW patents, here's a very well thought writing by Phil Salin, which equates patents to censorship of free speach:

http://philsalin.com/patents.html A little excerpt from the text:

Imagine if, for 17 years, only one author was allowed to write about the plot line "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy regains girl". Or that once some consortium of artists has invented rock and roll or string quartets (and produced an initial "reduction to practice"), no one else could write music in those styles for 17 years without their permission. Or that once the first mathematician has invented a technique for dividing numbers, all other mathematicians must for 17 years request permission before inventing their own techniques, for fear of accidentally reinventing or coming too close to reinventing what another mathematician has also thought about. In each of these cases, imagine the arrogance of someone claiming a right to bring before a court of law and convict of a civil crime all others who choose to think for themselves and write independently. [Phil Salin]

More on SW patents : Comment 1 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 11:59 GMT
I don't think that anybody here on ann who actually creates software (freelance and not namlessly for an employer) has a favourable opinion of software patents: No convincing needed if your livelihood is put at risk. And not just by patents but also by the emerging TCPA platform which might simply not run a hobbyists' software, uncertified by a TCPA trust center.

As to the rest who have no personal stake in it, they are usually not informed enough to understand the complexities and procedures of development and step forward with ill-conceived arguments such as "protecting inventors". Fortunately SCO's intellectual property attack came at exactly the right in time to plant some doubts into peoples' minds.

If you are against software patents, please consider signing the Linux petition against EU patents on software. You will find yourself in the good company of many European software houses (and individual developers):

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en
More on SW patents : Comment 2 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 30-Aug-2003 12:16 GMT
I'm totally against Software Patents and even against the extension of copyrights time into virtual infinity, which is way betond what teh founding fathers had in mind.

However, and regardless of my position.... hell regardless of the position of the majority of the population.....

The EU is going to support Software Patents if only as a matter of better safe then sorry and knowing full well it will in fact increase income generation in the field or industry of Law, in the form of fees and such for taking things to court.

The Intellectual Property issue or subject matter is continuing yto get overloaded and made more and more top heavy.

Just yesterday I was listening NPR (public radio) and there was some story regarding Photography and the industry or profession of Photographers, and what they together as a profession, have ban against. Computer altered photos is generally looked down upon, in place of the harder and trial and error methodology of doing similiar things (alterations and outcomes) in the dark room. I can understand that photography connected to News would ban such things as taking things out of or adding things to a photo used in a news story, but other things like contrast, tint, crop, I cannot understand the difference between whether or not it is done on a computer with ease or in teh darkroom with a higher level of skill and luck.

Computers, changing the face of everything from Music and Movie making and distribution, to .........

Software Patents????

A patent is a document, issued by a government office, which describes the invention and creates a legal situation in which the patented invention can normally only be exploited (made, used, sold, imported) by, or with the authorization of, the patentee. The protection of inventions is limited in time (generally 20 years from the filing date of the application for the grant of a patent).

Unfair Competition

The repression of unfair competition is directed against acts or practices, in the course of trade or business, that are contrary to honest practices, including, in particular:

* acts which may cause confusion with the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* false allegations which may discredit the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* indications or allegations which may mislead the public, in particular as to the manufacturing process of a product or as to the quality, quantity or other characteristics of products or services;
* acts in respect of unlawful acquisition, disclosure or use of trade secrets;
* acts causing a dilution or other damage to the distinctive power of another's mark or taking undue advantage of the goodwill or reputation of another's enterprise.

Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage creative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men.
More on SW patents : Comment 3 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 30-Aug-2003 12:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (3seas):
Armed with " Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage creative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men." which is from teh USPTO web site...

Knowing full well that more and more constraints will and are being placed on the general population for the benefit of the few....

Knowing that EU will accepts the software patent crap, what are you going to do? How are you going to deal with it?

When was the last time you read THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

I mean really read it!!! regardless of where you live!!!

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/independ/declar.html

Did you know it is your right and duty to resist such wrongful constraints?

How do you do that? You ignore them and make damn well sure that what ever you do that is against their unfair constraints, is in a clear direction of supporting fair and just in the scope of all men.
More on SW patents : Comment 4 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 30-Aug-2003 13:16 GMT
I think patents are ok. A person or company investing great deal of thought and resources to invent or create something worth patenting should have the right to claim and secure their work without having to be afraid someone just ripping the credit and predone hard research work away from them. In my opinion patenting is kind of like copyrights. For example if you paint a painting which will become famous, it's only fair that you own your work. Just as with copyrigts if someone is interested in your patent they can always consult you for a licence or approval instead of just ripping your ideas off and perhaps even stealing the credit.

Of course there can occur problems with patents too, with companies such as MS who use their rights to suffocate competition or freedom of development. However as a whole I see patents as a better alternative than for instance a world with everything being up for grabs just like that.

All in all it's really just a matter of opinion though.
More on SW patents : Comment 5 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Aug-2003 13:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (gz):
The biggest problem would be for the costumer in the end, someone using eg Office 200x saves a document, and places it online, anyone else with Office would be able to read it, but with clever use of patents all other applications could be forbidden to use that fileformat, thus rendering them imcompatable.

Imagine what this would do for eg OpenOffice, or anyone not running M$ software.

Software patents can have uses, but most likely the comsumer will be the one getting hurt most.

In the states there was even a patent on double clicking & on hyperlinks iirc, they were never invoked, but imagine if i were to buy those patents, and decide to sue everyone that uses them?

Cheers
More on SW patents : Comment 6 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 14:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (gz):
> I think patents are ok. A person or company investing great deal of thought and
> resources to invent or create something worth patenting should have the right to
> claim and secure their work without having to be afraid someone just ripping
> the credit and predone hard research work away from them

You didn't read that paper, did you?
More on SW patents : Comment 7 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 14:43 GMT
Oh for goodness SAKE.

Software patents are no more "censorship on free speach[sic]" than copyright is.

Why should software be somehow magically different from everything else?

Why should software have different rules governing it?

It's pathetic.

Sure, if one argues against ALL patents, then one has a good case to argue against software ones; but no, most anti-software-patent people argue solely against sw patents (often whilst raking in the benefits of existing hardware-related patents).


If one can patents a means of doing X, then why does it make any difference whether X is done via a peice of software, a silicon chip or a 16-storey tall building-full of complicated mechanical gadgetry?
More on SW patents : Comment 8 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 14:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
> Oh for goodness SAKE.

> Software patents are no more "censorship on free speach[sic]" than copyright
> is.

Copyright isn't censorship, and that's the whole point of the paper, which you, obviously, have not read.

Damn trolls :)
More on SW patents : Comment 9 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 15:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Fabio Alemagna):
Actually, dumbass, you have made my point completely - copyright is not censorship, and neither are patents.

Well done!

(BTW, unlike you I DID read the article in its entirity - perhaps you ought to read things before you post in future?)
More on SW patents : Comment 10 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 15:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (gz):
> All in all it's really just a matter of opinion though.

Brilliant. Everything is just a matter of opinion, isnt't it? Outside 1 + 1 = 2, that is.

> I think patents are ok. A person or company investing great deal of thought and resources to invent or create something worth patenting.

I wonder what gives you this surreal idea, unless you were in a coma recently. It takes two ingredients to obtain a software patent: (a) money (b) no prior art. Most notably absent from this list is "a lot of thought" (theoretically, there is the aspect of patent-worthiness but in reality, that's waived). The situation is comparable with domain names: if you are the first to grab "sex.com", you make millions. No Einstein brain required. It's a first-come-first-served meachnism. There is no Nobel Price commitee anywhere in it that restricts patents to the worthy (like inventing mp3). If you are the first to think of a "buy now" button, you are the lucky winner.

> Of course there can occur problems with patents too, with companies such as MS who use their rights to suffocate competition

The problems with patents doesn't only arise with those "evil" super companies. It's a good point but even now, there are quite small companies (we are still talking millions, though) that are founded for the sole reason to patent as much and as quickly as possible. The next generation of domain grabbers. Much of their patents will be contested, but still, such companies are a thorn in the side of developers.

> In my opinion patenting is kind of like copyrights

Patents are copyright on steroids. I personally create software, copyright is what keeps me alive. But just like with medicine, too much of the good stuff kills you. If you think of copyright in literature, patents in that domain would be like obtaining the ownership of words, the building blocks of speech. Algorithms are the building blocks of programs. Allowing to own those (patent those) is madness.
More on SW patents : Comment 11 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 15:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
> Actually, dumbass, you have made my point completely - copyright is not
> censorship, and neither are patents.

I've not made your point simply because patents are not even comparable to copyright, and that's the point of the paper which you, obviously, have not read.

> (BTW, unlike you I DID read the article in its entirity - perhaps you ought to
> read things before you post in future?)

Come on, even lying now? I repeat it: read the paper.
More on SW patents : Comment 12 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 15:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
> most anti-software-patent people argue solely against sw patents (often whilst raking in the benefits of existing hardware-related patents).

That's for many reasons. I've got to go shopping in ten minues, so I'll put forward only one ;-)

1. Physical patents have been around much longer. Many inventions have been around for so long that they can no longer be patented. You can't patent a wheel. But you can patent the software equivalent of a wheel (I mean that in the sense "obtain sole ownership of something terribly important"). Occasionaly, you still see the effect of "critical patents" in the real word. Think of drugs: Companies patent AIDS drugs. Stuff that costs cents to make can be sold for 100$ per drop because they own the patent (in reality it's more complex because development costs an arm and a leg but you get the idea). Millions die because profits come first. It takes years and a mountain of dead people before those companies relax in their greed.
More on SW patents : Comment 13 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 30-Aug-2003 15:56 GMT
What is the point in protesting? The EU isn't even democratic... so a petition isn't going to work. And anyway, it has done much worse things than introduce software patents. If you want to bring change, vote for a political party in your own country that supports the EU as a trade-barrier-free market.
More on SW patents : Comment 14 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 16:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (smithy):
> The EU isn't even democratic.

May I ask you what you mean by this?
More on SW patents : Comment 15 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 16:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (smithy):
> What is the point in protesting? The EU isn't even democratic... so a petition isn't going to work.

Right, and the earth is flat ;-) The EU has already responded to the protests by taking software patents off the original voting schedule (they were scheduled for 1/Sep). The EU might in fact be more inclinded to listen to you than the local governments because the latter reserve the big ears for the national lobbyists, not you (guess why big companies are almost exclusively punished by the EU for wrongdoings and never by their country). So if you are against software patents, please take the time to vote. It only takes a minute.
More on SW patents : Comment 16 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 16:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
> The EU has already responded to the protests by taking software patents off the
> original voting schedule (they were scheduled for 1/Sep).

Uh, more info please...
More on SW patents : Comment 17 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 16:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Amon_Re):
>In the states there was even a patent on double clicking & on hyperlinks iirc, they were never invoked, but imagine if i were to buy those patents, and decide to sue everyone that uses them?

It was in the UK (BT), not in the States, and the ownership was in fact claimed: British Telecom said they own hyperlinks. And they started sending demands to internet service providers. Don't know what exactly became of it. Here is a starting point for reading up on it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/11495.html
More on SW patents : Comment 18 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Aug-2003 16:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Fabio Alemagna):
> Uh, more info please...

If you understand German, follow the link below. To sum it up, a speaker of the European Parliament has confirmed that due to the unexpected protests and the request by some members of parliament for more information, the vote was taken of the schedule and is now expected to be held between 22-26. September or later.

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/tol-29.08.03-000/
More on SW patents : Comment 19 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 30-Aug-2003 16:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Anonymous):
Well, that's cool! Perhaps we are achieving something... too bad that news like thse don't get the necessary coverage by the media.
More on SW patents : Comment 20 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 30-Aug-2003 20:21 GMT
The re-schedualing is nothing more than a typical and often used tactic of delay in order to wear people down.

Ever notice how persistant the US is about taxing internet usage?

The fact that the over 30,000 software patents have been granted should tell you all something. The very fact the software patents are being granted at all and against the EU should tell you all you need to know.

How many more software patents do you suppose are going to be granted between Sept 1st and the new schedual?

How many software patents granted does it take to not be able to re-emburse people for the money they spent on getting a EU software patent?

little buy little the EU is being bought.

http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/query_en.htm

enter software+patents
More on SW patents : Comment 21 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Henrik Mikael Kristensen on 30-Aug-2003 20:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Fabio Alemagna):
"Well, that's cool! Perhaps we are achieving something... too bad that news like thse don't get the necessary coverage by the media."

Yes, I agree. Also in Danish mainstream news media, software patents have AFAIK never been mentioned more than once, and that was only as a triviality. Meanwhile they are busy-busy-busy warning against the next MS-virus. I'm afraid that the general public has a hard time understanding the pro's and con's with software patents, which probably is why there is little coverage. Viruses are something people understand.


I would have to laugh hard if some part of the EU administration uses software which will have to stop development or raise development costs dramatically, because they are sued with patent infringements, which leads to nothing but expenses for the EU. I really think, the only way the EU will listen, is if the problem hits their own administration.

I've spent the day reading through some discussions with law-students, lawyers and other people who work with law, and it seems clear to me that lawyers (at least some of them) have no clue what so ever what it means for a software developer to have to work around software patents. To them, hardware and software patents are the same.

I have one debate thread here. Unfortunately it's Danish, but no matter what arguments you throw at this person, he cannot (or will not) see what is bad about software patents.

http://debat.computerworld.dk/thread.asp?Mode=View&threadID=8237&Page=1

I'm not trying to trash the person, because he genuinely doesn't understand the problem. It just shows that if you aren't a software developer, the problem is hard to see, and apparently also very hard to explain for them, because they can't differentiate between software and hardware patents (this is eerily similar to the problem with piracy, RIAA and p2p programs. To them it's simple theft).
I'm very much afraid, this is the general idea among those people who are going to influence the upcoming EU vote.
More on SW patents : Comment 22 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 30-Aug-2003 21:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Anonymous):
Thx for the info!

Cheers
More on SW patents : Comment 23 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 30-Aug-2003 21:25 GMT
make that "software patents" in that search above

Also read: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/alcatel.pdf

and http://unixguru.com/

just how disconnected must one be, to be safe???

The only way to undermine the direction of software patents (worldwide even) is to , to use an analogy. The Roman Numeral system was outdated and proven to be weak in power compaired to the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system. In essence it proved beyond doubt that the Roman Numeral system was greatly lacking the value of nothing as a place holder. It showed fault in the Roman Numeral system use in mathmatics.

In the same way, the software patent issue is like the Roman Numeral system in not showing a more complete and full scope picture of reality.

Most software patents are in fact in violation of even the three primary things you cannot patent, natural law, physical phenomenon and abstract ideas, and further violate the case of mathmatical algorythims not supposed to be being patentable, amoung other "cannot patent" facets.

What is lacking is genuine and validateable software engineering foundation upon which software can be tested against to see if it might qualify for patentability.

In other words, the skill of babeling abstractions from an industry focused on such skill has dumbfounded those outside of that industry, including offices of Intellectual property grants.

What is needed to undo this problems growing in wrongful IP rights is to establish the genuine science of the physics of abstraction creation and usage.

Or in the analogy of Roman Numeral vs. Decimal System, the Natural laws of the Physical Phenomenon of creating and using abstract ideas from "nothing" is a simply not a patentable process in a patent system that fully recognizes the physics of abstraction. Which the current IP granting system and psuedo science does not recognize. Once such genuine software science has recognized this "zero" of abstraction physics then a great deal becomes so undeniably easy and obvious (like what the decimal system did for mathmatics) that a great deal more of the "not patentable" factor comes undeniably into view for even the typical user/consumer.

Or perhaps you would rather only the professional experts be allowed use of teh decimal system of mathmatics and calculations.....?????
More on SW patents : Comment 24 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 07:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (3seas):
>Most software patents are in fact in violation of even the three primary things you cannot patent, natural law, physical phenomenon and abstract ideas

I appreciate every single person who is against sofware patents. It is obvious to software developers that they are inherently destructive to the process of software creation and benefit the few vs the many. That said, I totally disagree with your argumentation. Your line of thought is mystical, not logical. I don't think your are doing us a favour with lofty arguments such as "natural law". Patents are like guns: Good people have guns to protect their possession. Bad people shoot you to get your possession. Allowing patents is like allowing guns. Except one critical difference: Everybody can afford a gun but only a fraction of developers can afford a patent.
More on SW patents : Comment 25 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 11:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anonymous):
It took 300 years for the hindu-arabic decimal system to be adopted to replace the Roman Numeral System. Regardles of the fact that it was much easier and powerful to use.

Why: cause there was vested interest by those professional experts of accountants and mathmaticians telling everyone and themselves how illogical and insane it was to think "nothing" could have value.

The Zero, for without we would not have computers today, and that's certainly not just in teh symbols of binary being "0" and "1" but of the math required to be able to invent computers.

The deceptive injection of claiming I'm saying that all developers are contributing to the problem, is just that, An Intentional Deceptive Injection of a Lie, in order to further suppress the point truth, the suppression of Honesty about automation mechanics.

Should it be of any supprise it comes for an Anon. poster? No! For you know you will look bad and dishonest anyway.

The fact is, just as it was when roman numerals were the main symbols of business accounting and math, it was taught in school. Doesn't mean it was right or the best way or that even the teachers understood there was a better way.
More on SW patents : Comment 26 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 13:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (3seas):
Natural Law is that which is beyond mans ability to deny. The laws of physics are such an example. And so are the yet to be recognized laws of abstraction creation and use.

There are ten natural laws of abstraction creation and use.

1) stop/start - change what you are interacting with, be it abstract thought or physical reality.

2) track where you are in a sequence - to know the movement of abstract thought or physical reality you have to know where something was, is and preceive change.

3) obtain input - be it abstract thought or physical reality, if you do not get input, then you simply cannot think. But even a plant gets input from nutrients in the soil, air and sun, only these are not abstraction, which requires thought.

4) Input focus - simply know/determine/select where you are getting input from, from where did you hear the sound, see the light, smell the odor, feel the heat. If you do not have input sensors to use then you cannot get input.

5) Output direction - try avoiding it. don't move, don't breath, don't type, etc..

6) sequence of actions - Another thing you cannot avoid... perhaps it's to obvious, if being to obvious is possible..

7) Access meaning of something - an abstraction is created out of the assignment of meaning to it. The level of abstraction can be real ie. see a hungry tiger in the lose means run. What good is an abstraction you or another creates if you cannot later access it's meaning?

8) Identify things to determine what sequence of actions to take, including any of the 10 natural laws of abstraction.

9) constrain or focus in on meanings and identifications - otherwise you will spend to much time looking for meaning and identifying things rather than doing what meaning and identification leads to --- and you will get eat by the tiger and no longer be.

10) choice - without it there is no need for abstractions.

If you do not think these are natural laws of abstraction creation and usage, then feel free to test them, by NOT doing them! Perhaps you think you can NOT use gravity too.

Physical phenomenon - in creating and using abstractions, even if only just in thoughts, there is still physical change happening, even if only in your brain passing electro-chemical signals around.

Abstract ideas - If you do not understand this, it is perhaps because you are standing to close, being to subjective to see and understand it. So step outside of your mind and look back at yourself.

The act of programming using abstractions (even the machine language of 0's and 1's is an abstraction of an electrophysical switch) is the automation of complexity (abstraction complexity creation and use), made up of putting simpler things (abstractions) together, so to make it's use and re-use easy to apply in action. Computers are the physical device created for the purpose of putting into action the conversion of these abstractions into physical action, even if only in the computer memory, like the human brain in action.

The ZEROing of the genuine science of programming (like zeroing a physical weight scale before use) is the identification, open recognition and application of the natural laws of Abstraction creation and use, in a manner to generate the physical phenomemnon of conversion or change.

The software industry has never been zeroed and is why there is such difficulty and contridictary "opinions" and arguements as to how things "ARE".

It's really little different than the evolution of the chemical industry, where alchemy came about in a trial and error fashion untill science pinned down the atomic structure of unique atoms and mapped them to eventually be able to have chemical mega plants. Only with the software industry, it's the point of conversion of the creation of the abstract to the physical movement which has not yet been pinned down in wide public scope and knowledge. Also unlike the Chemical industry which started out as a cottage industry and moved away from the cottage individuality, the final state of the software industry will be open source and application on a personal level of making things for yourself as you see fit. For the right to put things together to create more value is a natural right and duty of all Humans, and to do so in order to improve and extend the value of human life experience.
More on SW patents : Comment 27 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 31-Aug-2003 13:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Fabio Alemagna):
>> The EU isn't even democratic.

>May I ask you what you mean by this?

I mean that the EU isn't interested in public opinion. It does as it pleases.
More on SW patents : Comment 28 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 31-Aug-2003 13:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
>Right, and the earth is flat ;-) The EU has already responded to the protests
>by taking software patents off the original voting schedule (they were
>scheduled for 1/Sep).

Probably the unelected and overpaid officials involved in patents had a free junket to the Carribean over the summer, at the taxpayers expense, that'll be it was delayed.
More on SW patents : Comment 29 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 14:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (3seas):
Oh yeah, for those who do not already know:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/victor1

a version 0.5.1 will be uploaded by the end of the laborday holiday.

Funny how a working example of any software patent seems to not be required but that I have to have a working V.I.C. (detailed proof of abstraction creation and use reailty) to disprove software patents...

Somehow I don't think I'll have to wait 300 years for acceptance, like the zero had.
More on SW patents : Comment 30 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 17:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (smithy):
> Probably the unelected and overpaid officials involved in patents

Advice: Repeatedly showcasing your ingnorance won't make you look any better ;-). The EU parliament, which decides this issue, is elected by the people of the EU (as is consequently any working group they form on patents).
More on SW patents : Comment 31 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Anonymous):
ROTFL!

To think - you seriously believe that - that's the sad part of your post.

*sigh*
More on SW patents : Comment 32 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (3seas):
> Somehow I don't think

That hits the nail on the head ;-) Or I've had a drink too much to follow your thoughts.

> to wait 300 years for acceptance, like the zero had.

The Americans are still sceptical of the metric system. The Brits drive on the wrong side of the road. I think this world is not yet prepared for you.
More on SW patents : Comment 33 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anonymous):
> To think - you seriously believe that - that's the sad part of your post.

Believe what? That the EU parliament is elected? There is no blieving involved in that, it's just a fact.
More on SW patents : Comment 34 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anonymous):
> To think - you seriously believe that - that's the sad part of your post.

Believe what? That the EU parliament is elected? There is no blieving involved in that, it's just a fact.
More on SW patents : Comment 35 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anonymous):
[continued]

"The European Parliament represents, in the words of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, 'the peoples of the States brought together in the European Community'. Some 375 million European citizens in 15 countries are now involved in the process of European integration through their 626 representatives in the European Parliament.

The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in June 1979 when, 34 years after the end of Second World War, for the first time in history, the peoples of the nations of Europe, once torn apart by war, went to the polls to elect the members of a single parliament. Europeans could have devised no more powerful symbol of reconciliation.

The European Parliament, which derives its legitimacy from direct universal suffrage and is elected every five years, has steadily acquired greater influence and power through a series of treaties. These treaties, particularly the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, have transformed the European Parliament from a purely consultative assembly into a legislative parliament, exercising powers similar to those of the national parliaments. Today the European Parliament, as an equal partner with the Council of Ministers, passes the majority of European laws - laws that affect the lives of Europe's citizens."

Source: EU parliament's web site:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/presentation/default_en.htm
More on SW patents : Comment 36 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Anonymous):
No, the bit I find laughable is that you really seem to believe that there is even a shred of democracy in the EU - it is run by faceless unaccountable people, with absolutely zero democratic checks on what goes on.

Oh, sure, there is a pretense of a democratic face to fool the gullible, but there is no democracy in the real power-wielding parts of the EU.

I do find it almost touching the way you display your complete gullability by quoting from the EU's claims to show the EU is democratic...
More on SW patents : Comment 37 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 31-Aug-2003 20:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
>Believe what? That the EU parliament is elected? There is no blieving involved
>in that, it's just a fact.

In the last European elections, thet turnout was less than 30% in the UK. That means 42 million people (in the UK alone) didn't vote. Surveys have shown this to be because they believe the European Parliament is powerless and irrelevant to their lives, and they don't accept the legitamacy of the EU (nobody voted to join anything greater than a common market).
More on SW patents : Comment 38 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Anonymous):
>No, the bit I find laughable is that you really seem to believe that there is even a shred of democracy in the EU - it is run by faceless unaccountable people, with absolutely zero democratic checks on what goes on

Well, it has a glaring deficit in form of the council of ministers but that's a structural deficit, not a democratic deficit, since in the end, all law makers in the EU are elected. If not EU wide (as are members of parliament), than at least nationally. I'm assuming here that all EU countries require their ministers to be elected members of parliament. Personally, I'm absolutely not sastisfied with the structure of the EU, too, but that's NO excuse for sticking your head into the sand and claim that protests against software patents are pointless. They are not. So please take a minute and leave your name on the Linux protest site.
More on SW patents : Comment 39 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (smithy):
> In the last European elections, thet turnout was less than 30% in the UK.
More on SW patents : Comment 40 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (smithy):
> In the last European elections, thet turnout was less than 30% in the UK.
More on SW patents : Comment 41 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 20:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (smithy):
> In the last European elections, thet turnout was less than 30% in the UK.

That's the fault of the constituency, not the fault of the elected (please excuse my empty postingsabove, CR sits a bit loose today).
More on SW patents : Comment 42 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 31-Aug-2003 20:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (smithy):
Not totally true, they acted against OTE (Greek Telecom) after the public
whined at them.
More on SW patents : Comment 43 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Aug-2003 21:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (3seas):
> There are ten natural laws of abstraction creation and use

What this theory covers is the process of refinery, the step-by-step succession that is governed by certain laws (input, output, processing). What this theory does not cover is the most important part: inspiration. For example, you can build the house of mathematics from a few starting points by ingeniously using your brain to draw conclusions, step by step. But if you go back, in any science, at some point you will always reach a point where postulates turn up that can not be proved (ever). In science, those are called axioms, "a principle that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument". Another thing you have not covered by your theory is singularities, like the creation of the universe. You also have not yet covered the concept of time which must be fundamental to a theory based on succession of time. Nor have you covered Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Good luck.
More on SW patents : Comment 44 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 31-Aug-2003 22:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
>> There are ten natural laws of abstraction creation and use> "What this theory covers is the process of refinery, the step-by-step succession that is governed by certain laws (input, output, processing). What this theory does not cover is the most important part: inspiration. For example, you can build the house of mathematics from a few starting points by ingeniously using your brain to draw conclusions, step by step. But if you go back, in any science, at some point you will always reach a point where postulates turn up that can not be proved (ever). In science, those are called axioms, "a principle that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument". Another thing you have not covered by your theory is singularities, like the creation of the universe. You also have not yet covered the concept of time which must be fundamental to a theory based on succession of time. Nor have you covered Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Good luck."Luck has nothing to do with it! Intentional deception to distract has a lot to do with it.You have a choice, you can read what was communicated or you can ignore it.You seem to have chosen to ignore keeping track or where you are and sequencing, which are both issues of time. law #1 and #6I've covered every reasonable arguement presented me in the last 15 years, where most all of it is available on the internet somewhere, but I have never been able to address the choice of ignorance so persistant in the choice to ignore.The ten laws of abstraction creation and usage are provable, just try not to use them.Inspiration comes from the basic drive of survival, the will to survive. It is in fact the the drive to survive that lead man to consciousness in order to overcome the limitations of having only at best 1st or 2nd level language abstraction.Input, output, processing are general descriptive terms of which are refinable to first nine of the ten laws of abstraction creation and use. Some of these laws are also apply to the physical world (for the laws represent the conversion between the abstract and real). The law of choice requires consciousness which is required for complex abstraction comprehension.What is a singularity but a gravity unit that, like all gravity units, contains the potential for all things. Collapse a gravity unit in an unbalanced way and you will create a.... big bang. A nuclear bomb is almost it, almost causes a collapsing gravity unit. But the methodology is wrong so almost is as close as it can ever get.Axioms and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...don't forget the Turning Haulting Problem...How do you prove a negative? From the other side, of course! But can you get there? Bush seemes to be trying, only he is looking for a positive...Techniques of deception that are easy to apply and safe from proof. How you prove they exist is to knowling perform them and not have anyone able to prove you deceived. Not being able to prove something, doesn't make it not exist. There is a lot about gravity we do not know, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for what ever it all is. But by making people aware of such techniques of deception they can then see it happening and are far better able to avoid it... but to prove such a deception to another.... you have to take them willingly and open minded to the other side, the side of performing such a deceptions themselves to find they to can get away with it.You want an answer to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, then go to the singularity of gravity for the answer. Or are you just to uncertain about what gravity really is? Here's a clue for you, about the uncertainty principle: if the answer is not within your vocabulary, then how are you to know it?IE, if roman numerals is the extent of your math symbols of value amounts, how will you know algerbra or anything beyond that in complexity?You cannot solve a language limitation problem by creating another language, for that only gives you another, but perhaps different, example of language limitations.However, you can recognize the natural laws of abstraction creation and usage and knowingly apply them in order to switch between languages and vocabularities in order to best and easist express a communication.So tell me, do you have any other relative or disconnected distractions you would like me to answer?
More on SW patents : Comment 45 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 08:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (3seas):
>What is a singularity but a gravity unit that

A singularity is a discontinuity, not gravity (you have read too much Hawkins or seen too much Startrek ;-) Anyway, what I was trying to get at with my objections, by mentioning axioms, singularities, Heisenberg and time is that reality is not sequential but contains "jumps", "singularities", "discontinuity", "quantums" and "starting points" and "end points". Making matters worse, discontinuity appears to be at the heart of everything, specifically matter (which, among other things, introduces randomness into the macro world, with possible consequences at the point where atoms and macro world and us meet: our brain). And yet you are presenting a theory of continuity and see the world as a state machine. You think that there are steps (your "natural laws") that can transform reality state 1 into reality state 2. I see that as a flawed concept, for reasons stated above. In addition to that, one of your axioms is that you have states which is an assumption about time. There habe been interesting discussions on that, involving Zeno's paradox. This here might interest you:

http://www.01.246.ne.jp/~tnoumi/noumi1/books/pointtime.html
More on SW patents : Comment 46 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 01-Sep-2003 08:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
Ah, but then it isn't _software_ patents that are evil, is it?
AIDS drugs aren't software, at least not as far as I know.

Software patents aren't much different from other patents. The problem is that people end up patenting the wrong things, and using those patents the wrong way.

The patent offices should be better at catching these, and it should be possible to have a patent revoked if it turns out the holder is misusing it or it shouldn't have been given in the first place.

I repeat: Software patents aren't much different than other patents.
More on SW patents : Comment 47 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 10:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Olegil):
> I repeat: Software patents aren't much different than other patents

No difference: Purchase a patent and you have secured ownership. The same mechanism with the same steps: an application must meet certain formal criteria, substantial fees are to be paid by the applicant, no former art, some degree of patent-worthiness is expected, protection is limited in time and there is a mechanism to contest (that might require you to defend your patent with lawyers).

But that's not the point because the environment where they are used could not be more different: Software creation is inherently different from manufacturing in the absence of physical goods (extending to the absence of expensive manufacturing equipement and the absence of a factory-sized workforce):

You won't find a two-man "developer group" building the next Mercedes and releasing it under the GPL. Aside from the odd inventor here and there, they playing field is level among producers of physical goods because it's a playing field of companies. The playing field of software could not be more different: you will find every possible scenario from individual developers to small teams to agressive companies dominating whole market segments at will. That invites the question what patents will do to that scenario:

Obviously, teams below a certain size are unfairly disadvantaged by patents because this group, lacking funds, will not be able to register patents, they will not be able to contest patents, they will not be able to investigate patents and they will not be able to license patents. If you are Microsoft, you will not care about that group and patents are welcome. However, this group of people currently releases the majority of software. It includes the developers of Linux as well as virtually very single Amiga developer as well as the Windows shareware developers. This is a massive group of people that deserves consideration (regrettably a group with no lobby).

To sum it up: the point that begs to be considered is consequences. One can not judge a mechanism like patents on a purely technical level or ideologically ("protect inventors"). You have to take the consequences into account. To use that gun/patents picture again: if you are pro-gun and pro-self-defence, you will still want to take the scenario into account and not distribute guns into a volatile scenario. That's why the pro-gun USA us taking away guns from the Iraqis.
More on SW patents : Comment 48 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 10:20 GMT
One nasty effect of patents not yet mentioned in this thread is that patents make software more expensive: money is needed for obtaining patents, for licensing patents, for contesting patents and for defending patents. I'm not aware of serious investigations on the effect on prices, but taking into account recent patent settlements, it might be substantial.
More on SW patents : Comment 49 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 10:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Anonymous):
I can tell you from experience that the cost of applyinjg for and administering a patent is insignificant compared to the R & D costs.
More on SW patents : Comment 50 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 01-Sep-2003 11:00 GMT
Phil Sallin makes a big mistake when he equates programming as writing, programming is more like a design of a construction rather than a plain text or mathematical expression. The executable that the source code produces is providing it's user with a service, just like any other physical product that you can buy in a store. Stealing and making profit from another company's product design is wrong, which is why we have patents.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying this at all.
Anonymous, there are 71 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 71]
Back to Top