27-Apr-2024 23:12 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 71 items in your selection (but only 21 shown due to limitation) [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 51 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 01-Sep-2003 12:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Anonymous):
@________ (fill in the blank)


"A singularity is a discontinuity, not gravity (you have read too much Hawkins or seen too much Startrek ;-)"

And you know this about me by how? As far as I know neither Hawkins or Star Trek
has ever mentioned "gravity units" though Star Trek has a reputation of using NASA as a technical resource and NASA is willing because Star Trek helps to promote the Space Program....

"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)."

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Sounds to me that you are so deep into theory you wouldn't know reality if it knocked you on your butt. "Making matters worse, discontinunity appears to be at ....." in other words you don't know.

"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."

Do not presume to to assume you know what I think. Your claims about what you think I think is really nothing more than your own faulty perception of what you think I think. And in the process of your creation of disconnectd distractions you have most certainly become disconnected from the obvious reality that the laws of abstraction creation and use are writting in terms of the environment of the abstraction manipulation machine, an automation machine, a computer which is a state machine.

The fundamental difference between theory and application is whether or not you can apply it with successful consistant results. And guess what, the runnable application of the VIC is being worked on and even available under the GPL.

On the issue of Software Patents. Todays perception of what is patentable as software is like saying the roman numeral equivalant to the equasion "((2+8-6)/34) X 59 = 1.7352903" is patentable because of it difficulty level that makes it non-obvious ---- IN ROMAN NUMERAL TERMS
More on SW patents : Comment 52 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 15:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (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

Excuse me, but - in a thread about EU patents - that is nonsense. Under the current system, obtaining a patent valid in eight EU states costs in excess of EUR 50,000 (a significant portion of that is translation costs which are to be covered by the applicant). This is not peanuts but clearly prohibitive for individual developers. A quote from the most unlikely source, the Office of International Relations, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "The current patent regime in Europe is unsatisfactory to many users for two primary reasons: exorbitant expense [...] Obtaining a patent in Europe is costly and can be prohibitively so for individuals and small companies".
More on SW patents : Comment 53 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 16:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 51 (3seas):
> Your claims about what you think I think is really nothing more than your own faulty perception of what you think I think.

I don't think you get my objections or you are too uptight to concede a point. Your theory does not take into account Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum physics. Reality (including the thought process of humans) can not be described as a state machine that goes from state A to state B following "natural laws". Reality is not deterministic. Otherwise, our life would be predetermined at birth and free will would not exist. Our macro world appears to be deterministic but not the world of particles. That world is random. And as it happens, these worlds do interact. One famous example, since Hawkins was mentioned, is the amazing fact that matter *can* leave black holes thanks to quantum theory and uncertainty. I brought you another example, our brain, where theses worlds are very close and quite likely interact. If you are not yet familiar with the paradoxical world of quantum theory, I recommend to look up "Schroedinger's cat" via google (to get you interested) and than read up on the basics here:

http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat/Default.htm

"A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, and the geiger-counter detects an alpha particle, the hammer hits a flask of prussic acid (HCN), killing the cat. The paradox lies in the clever coupling of quantum and classical domains. Before the observer opens the box, the cat's fate is tied to the wave function of the atom, which is itself in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus, said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box, ``observes'' the cat, and ``collapses'' it's wave function."

More on this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=schroedinger%27s+cat&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=a210c6c1.0306112143.2a7bb93c%40posting.google.com&rnum=3

Even ignoring quantum physics, your theory has more gaping loopholes, like the assumtion that reality can be frozen into states. Well, nuff of it now ;-)
More on SW patents : Comment 54 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 01-Sep-2003 17:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Anonymous):
What Theory? I never said anything about having a theory. Nor did I bring up Hawkins. Furthermore, Shrodinger obviously doesn't like cats as he clearly made up an excuse to kill them in the name of science.
More on SW patents : Comment 55 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 17:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (3seas):
>Furthermore, Shrodinger obviously doesn't like cats as he clearly made up an excuse to kill them in the name of science.

lol :-) Don't worry, that's not a Fun Quantum Physics Experiment You Can Do In Your Spare Time, it's just a thought. When it was carried out, it was done with a CATion, a positively charged ion.
More on SW patents : Comment 56 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 01-Sep-2003 17:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Anonymous):
Occums Razor....... all the complexity of theories cannot stand up to the simplicity of application.
More on SW patents : Comment 57 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 18:44 GMT
Interesting article from Inquirer on a specific patent, plug-ins:

-- cut ---

AFTER THE SPECTACULAR $521 million judgement against Microsoft, for infringing on a patent that covers plugins in web browsers, no-one was particularly surprised that [Microsoft] was planning an appeal.

Plugins are the helper programs [that] run inside your browser and help you view content like PDF [...]

And in case MS-haters are feeling a little smug, they should consider that the implications of the patent are unlikely to be limited to only Volish software: If the patent stands as currently interpreted there are a number of Open Source and other products that are likely to be found to be infringing. And while Microsoft could probably find the cash in their piggy bank to pay Eolas, that's not going to be an option for any of the Open Source projects (and many of the others) [...]

What Eolas and InterTrust have in common is that their main business is in "intellectual property", the sale of permission to use ideas. As such they don't have any significant end-user products of their own, but rely on collecting royalties from companies that do. That makes it hard to use the usual patent case defense: countersuing based on some patents from your own portfolio. If a company like this gets a patent on a key technology they can, to a large extent, dictate terms to the industry. (I won't mention Rambus in this connection since that usually results in a flood of email flames.)

From a European point of view it's worth considering whether this software patent hullabaloo is something we want to import from the other side of the pond. That decision is being made right now.
More on SW patents : Comment 58 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 01-Sep-2003 19:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (samface):
> 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.

You fail to see that those mathematical expression and that plain text comes from a process which involves design as well as new discoveries and carefull thinking.

You obviously have not carefully read what Sallin wrote, because he covered _exactly_ that aspect, comparing SW and writings at exactly _that_ level. I'm afraid you didn't even care to read.


> The executable that the source code produces is providing it's user with a
> service,

And doesn't the text you read provide you with a service? Don't all the mathematical dicoveries provide you with a service?

> just like any other physical product that you can buy in a store.

Just like any other book you can buy in libraries or mathematical concepts or algorithms you can use to achieve your goals. So?

> Stealing and making profit from another company's product design is wrong,
> which is why we have patents.

Stealing? What if I just come up with an idea which, incidentally, is the same or very similar to the one you had? Is that stealing? Sorry, but what I find that securing patents on such things is closer to stealing my freedom to invent things than infridging patent is close to stealing.
More on SW patents : Comment 59 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Sep-2003 21:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Fabio Alemagna):
" You obviously have not carefully read what Sallin wrote,"

" I'm afraid you didn't even care to read. "

Ah yes. Here we have the typical reply from braindead Fabio whenever anyone dares to say something Fabio dislikes but cannot argue against with reason, he simply resorts to him blind mantra of "you obviously didn't read".

Yeash, right, Fabio - whatever.

BTW Fabio, have you found this mythical "partially pregnant" woman which you state exists?

(Ahes ago Fabio stated that it is possible to be "partly" pregnant, and despite medical experts pointing out the falacy of his claim, he still maintains that he is right and the medical world is wrong even to this day. Gives you an idea of the sort of person we are dealing with here, folks...)
More on SW patents : Comment 60 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 01-Sep-2003 22:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Anonymous):
The state of having a miscarrage...sorta like the state of being Anonymous, here but not here...
More on SW patents : Comment 61 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 06:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (3seas):
Even then the lady is either pregnant or not pregnant - she is never 38% pregnant, for example.
More on SW patents : Comment 62 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 07:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (samface):
>Stealing and making profit from another company's product design is wrong, which is why we have patents.

You are confusing issues. Copyright protects against stealing of actual code. And no laws protect against plagiarism. Finally, software patents are about the building blocks, not about whole applications, and in that way extend far beyond copyright. The typical scenario with patents is not that a software patent is understood, recognized and then willfully violated ("stolen"): the typical scenario is that a developer is unaware of the 30,000+ filed software patents: applications are completed, code is created, work is completed. Then patent holders step up and open their hand and, with the license to rob you blind. To come back to your stealing metaphor, I think it is open to question who exactly steals whom's work here.
More on SW patents : Comment 63 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 02-Sep-2003 08:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Fabio Alemagna):
>>You didn't read that paper, did you?


No I didn't but now that I've read it, I agree.

I made the mistake of comparing sw patents to hw patents in my mind that time around and clearly it's not the same thing.
More on SW patents : Comment 64 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Anonymous):
> " You obviously have not carefully read what Sallin wrote,"
> " I'm afraid you didn't even care to read. "

> Ah yes. Here we have the typical reply from braindead Fabio whenever anyone
> dares to say something Fabio dislikes but cannot argue against with reason, he
> simply resorts to him blind mantra of "you obviously didn't read".

If he doesn't undestand that the point he makes are already covered by Sallin, the only ovious explanation is that he didn't read carefully or, worse, he didn't even bother to read.

Do you have any other explanation, oh my genius?


> BTW Fabio, have you found this mythical "partially pregnant" woman which you
> state exists?

Who are you among these trolls? Kelly? John Burns?

You are dragging here a discussion which was about fuzzy logic. As every educate person knows, fuzzy logic doesn't contemplate a yes/nop state, there's always an "in between", so unless you can identify the precise moment in which a woman is pregnant, there MUST be a partially pregnant woman. Stating that a woman is pregnant "after he gets fertilized" is not identifying the _exact_ moment.

But then you had problem dealing with the concept that a glass can be "not entirely broken", how can I expect you can understan that a woman can be "partially pregnant"?


> (Ahes ago Fabio stated that it is possible to be "partly" pregnant, and
> despite medical experts pointing out the falacy of his claim, he still

Medical experts? Where are they? Come on, making up facts just to pretend you're right?

> maintains that he is right and the medical world is wrong even to this day.
> Gives you an idea of the sort of person we are dealing with here, f

Of course, since what you say is not true, your point is moot.
More on SW patents : Comment 65 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 17:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (Fabio Alemagna):
"f he doesn't undestand that the point he makes are already covered by Sallin, the only ovious explanation is that he didn't read carefully or, worse, he didn't even bother to read.

Do you have any other explanation, oh my genius? "

Yes.

There is another explanation, and that is that YOU, the infallable Fabio, coudl actually be WRONG for once in your life - ever thought of that, oh amazing one?

(See? I can use pathetic language too).

Ever considered that you are too blinkered to realise that his point was NOT the same one after all?

" > BTW Fabio, have you found this mythical "partially pregnant" woman which you
> state exists?

Who are you among these trolls? Kelly? John Burns?

You are dragging here a discussion which was about fuzzy logic. As every educate person knows, fuzzy logic doesn't contemplate a yes/nop state, there's always an "in between", so unless you can identify the precise moment in which a woman is pregnant, there MUST be a partially pregnant woman. Stating that a woman is pregnant "after he gets fertilized" is not identifying the _exact_ moment.
"

After "he" gets pregnant? Erm, OK, whatever, Fabio - I know you like to pretend to understand fuzzy logic, but methinks you are taking fuzziness too far there...

So tell us, oh knowledgeable one - if a woman can be "partially" pregnant, at what stage is she 38% pregnant, hmmm?

"Partially pregnant" indeed.

Next you will be telling us one can be 93% virgin, eh?
More on SW patents : Comment 66 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 18:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Anonymous):
>So tell us, oh knowledgeable one - if a woman can be "partially" pregnant, at what stage is she 38% pregnant, hmmm?

You asked for a it, you get it (a dumb answer to a dumb post): At the point when the sperm has penetrated 38% of the egg's cell wall. Pregnancy (ie a fertilized egg) is unavoidable and proceeding nicely at that point but in the strict sense, the situation is not yet exactly pregnant. It's just on schedule and rocking.
More on SW patents : Comment 67 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 66 (Anonymous):
On schedule and rockin? you mean she'll NEVER be pregnant?
More on SW patents : Comment 68 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 20:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Anonymous):
> Yes.

> There is another explanation, and that is that YOU, the infallable Fabio,
> coudl actually be WRONG for once in your life - ever thought of that, oh
> amazing one?
>
>
> (See? I can use pathetic language too).
>
> Ever considered that you are too blinkered to realise that his point was NOT
> the same one after all?

Look, that's not something which is so difficult to tell: just read the paper, read what samface wrote, and compare. If you notice that samface is barking about things which salling has already talked about, then you can absolutely, without any doubts, conclude that samface hasn't read the paper.

Beside, it's not like I failed at this kind of guesses before: up there you can find the message of "gz" who _confirms_ my guess that he hadn't read the paper, and then he admits that the points made there were right.

So, genius, still something to say?


> You are dragging here a discussion which was about fuzzy logic. As every
> educate person knows, fuzzy logic doesn't contemplate a yes/nop state, there's
> always an "in between", so unless you can identify the precise moment in which
> a woman is pregnant, there MUST be a partially pregnant woman. Stating that a
> woman is pregnant "after he gets fertilized" is not identifying the _exact_
> moment."

> After "he" gets pregnant? Erm, OK, whatever, Fabio - I know you like to
> pretend to understand fuzzy logic, but methinks you are taking fuzziness too
> far there...

Come on dude, don't you find it silly to complain like that about a simple typo? I didn't hit the 's" strong enough, that's all. How childish...

> So tell us, oh knowledgeable one - if a woman can be "partially" pregnant, at
> what stage is she 38% pregnant, hmmm?

A clever anonymous a bit earlier my message answered to your questions unequivocably. Content?

> "Partially pregnant" indeed.

Yep. I know it's hard for you to get, but you can't blame me for your problems.

> Next you will be telling us one can be 93% virgin, eh?

Sure the reasoning goes the same as above, only the "stuff" at hand changes.
More on SW patents : Comment 69 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Sep-2003 18:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 68 (Fabio Alemagna):
"Beside, it's not like I failed at this kind of guesses before: up there you can find the message of "gz" who _confirms_ my guess that he hadn't read the paper, and then he admits that the points made there were right.

So, genius, still something to say? "


Yes.

Just because you managed to be correct *ONCE ONLY* does NOT make you autocatically correct all the time. Surely even you are not so arrogant as to assume otherwise? Although, given we are talking about the great Fabio, perhaps you really ARE that arrogant (you usually are)...



" > After "he" gets pregnant? Erm, OK, whatever, Fabio - I know you like to
> pretend to understand fuzzy logic, but methinks you are taking fuzziness too
> far there...

Come on dude, don't you find it silly to complain like that about a simple typo? I didn't hit the 's" strong enough, that's all. How childish... "


I refer you to one of your other posts where you went ballistic because someone accidentally mis-spelled your name. Or is it only childish when pointing out YOUR typing, eh Fabio?


" > So tell us, oh knowledgeable one - if a woman can be "partially" pregnant, at
> what stage is she 38% pregnant, hmmm?

A clever anonymous a bit earlier my message answered to your questions unequivocably. Content?
"

Given that he did not give an accurate answer (kinda tricky for him so to have done as you can NOT be partially-pregnant), not really.


you know, Fabio, there are times when I think that maybe I shoudl rethink my decision from a couple of years back to abandon collaboration on teh AROS project.

then I see your Ego running riot again (as it always does) and I remember exactly why I stopped - your uncontrollable arrogance and egotism, and having to deal with it every single time any minor issue crops up...
More on SW patents : Comment 70 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 07-Sep-2003 23:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 69 (Anonymous):
> perhaps you really ARE that arrogant (you usually are)... then I see your Ego running riot again (as it always does) and I remember exactly why I stopped - your uncontrollable arrogance and egotism

It takes an arrogant person to recognize arrogance, I guess. You certainly are very good at it, sunshine ;-)
More on SW patents : Comment 71 of 71ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 08-Sep-2003 18:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 70 (Anonymous):
" It takes an arrogant person to recognize arrogance, I guess. You certainly are very good at it, sunshine ;-)"

What can I say?

It takes arrogance to recognise arrogance, which, by your own logic, means either you and I are both arrogant or neither of us is...

Your call.
Anonymous, there are 71 items in your selection (but only 21 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 71]
Back to Top