Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wild Fragaria on October 13, 2005, 09:11:20 am
-
Editorial: Nature 437, 928 (13 October 2005) | doi: 10.1038/437928a
The US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has rarely fulfilled the full potential of its nominal role, which is to provide the most powerful elected official in the world with scientific advice.
In theory, the presidentially appointed panel could keep the president informed on key science- and technology-related issues, ranging from avian flu and global warming to computer viruses and nuclear-weapons proliferation.
In practice, however, the panel has never lived up to that ideal. It came closest, perhaps, under the first President Bush, who graced PCAST meetings with his presence. The panel was active but not particularly influential under Bill Clinton, and has been almost invisible under the current president.
So the news that PCAST is to be merged with another, even more obscure panel, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), will make few waves. Nonetheless, the amalgamation of the panels, and the expansion of the possible number of members from 25 to an unwieldy 45, portends a possible weakening of the voice of science in the White House.
PCAST has already confined itself to the relative arcana of science policy. At the moment, for example, it is evaluating the effectiveness of the National Nanotechnology Initiative — a worthwhile exercise, but hardly one that is likely to grab the president's attention.
Floyd Kvamme, a venture capitalist who co-chairs PCAST with John Marburger, the president's science adviser, says the new panel will operate much as before, with the new work delegated to appropriate subcommittees. But unless the panel becomes considerably more active, its new role overseeing all the information-technology research initiatives in the federal government may mean that less time and resources are available to work on science issues. This marks a continuation of the tendency of the Bush administration to marginalize the voices of science in its internal deliberations.
One of the difficulties that will always face a body such as PCAST is the sheer vastness of the territory it is supposed to cover. These days, advice on specific scientific questions will often require detailed specializations that few PCAST members will possess. At the same time, there is a tendency for officially designated advisory bodies that are required by US law to meet in public — such as PCAST — to shun robust discussion of substantive issues. Finally, the president's discretion in appointing the entire panel himself is not conducive to the delivery of solid and occasionally unwelcome advice.
PCAST is the latest in a series of similar panels stretching back to the administration of Harry Truman. Some have been more active and influential than others, depending largely on the president's own interest in science and his relationship with the chief science adviser. Perhaps a future administration will develop the committee's role and profile instead of neglecting it — but even then, the panel's preeminence will last only as long at that president's term in office.
*************************************************
Things that science and technology related in this country are going down hill fast. First, ID and now this.
-
PCAST Standard Minutes plan;
Select one at random.
1/ You can eat that
2/ You can skin and sell that
3/ We don't need that
4/ We have too many of those
5/ It's cheaper to get rid of that
6/ That'll be extinct soon, but saving it costs money, so we don't want it
7/ That'll cost money we can otherwise spend on electric hammers
8/ We refuse to acknowledge that exists
9/Ok, it might exist, but it's not our fault
10/ Ok, it exists and it's our fault, but it's too expensive to fix.
11/ Blame France/China/Canada/Democrats/God (select as appropriate)
-
I guess when God talks to you, you don't need advisors.
-
Then he should really mention that God talked to him while trying to introduce ID to the education system here.
-
Does this mean Dick Cheney is God?
-
Cheney? God? His's name Cheney not God, maybe he just a representative of God.
-
God moves in mysterious ways.
After all - nipples for men?
-
Why not?
-
Well, if they did something useful like, I dunno, shot laser beams, then fine. I'm not sure anyone could argue with nipple based death rays.
-
Not for longer than the beam warmup time at least :D
-
An option for men if some day men are giving the chance to nurse their offsrpings? :)
-
There was a similar article (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/13/1640200&tid=103&tid=219&tid=14) on /.
What really struck me was this comment:
A major part of the problem is that profit is more important than innovation. Pure, unadulterated research for the sake of discovering new and better ways of doing things or even just learning something new is pretty much dead.
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
An option for men if some day men are giving the chance to nurse their offsrpings? :)
I don't think lactations' my strong suit
;)
-
There are hormones you can take which will take care of that little problem for you :D
-
Well, I guess it would make breakfast simpler. Grab some crunchy nut, a little nipple twist and roberts' your fathers brother.
Although there's probably some downside I'm not seeing.
-
WMCoolmon
This is sad and dissapointing to see.
Aldo & Karajorma
You get the freshest milk and save some money from getting milk delivered to your doors :)
-
...the expansion of the possible number of members from 25 to an unwieldy 45...
It's a good thing Republicans are opposed to wasteful government spending.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
Aldo & Karajorma
You get the freshest milk and save some money from getting milk delivered to your doors :)
Or you could drink lots of vodka and dispense White Russians on cue :D
-
Good call Karajorma. I guess men having nipples are quite beneficial afterall :)
-
I'd still prefer death rays.
-
How about one is a death ray and the other provides drinks :)
-
Getting the 2 confused would be a bit dodgy in social situations, though.
"Fancy a drink?"
"Sure"
"AAAH! My eye!"
-
Sounds like what would happen if it was a bit chilly.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Sounds like what would happen if it was a bit chilly.
Hmm.
You have a good point there.
Perhaps the purpose of male nipples is to allow us to cut through sheets of ice in winter, thus being able to fish.
-
Anyhow, let's get back to the more serious topic.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
There was a similar article (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/13/1640200&tid=103&tid=219&tid=14) on /.
What really struck me was this comment:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major part of the problem is that profit is more important than innovation. Pure, unadulterated research for the sake of discovering new and better ways of doing things or even just learning something new is pretty much dead.
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?...
...When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
Fund cut happen more 'severely' in the academic field in the recent years and causes a lot more the 'side-effects' in the research labs.
Because of it, the grant applications have got tougher and more compatative every year. The whole process of getting your research project funded and started has gotten complicated and very political because of the money issue. Some departments and institutions even face out scientists who can not bring money in on time. The research faculties are give a certain time frame to bring in certain amount of money. If they fail, game over.
I often feel disgusted by how people (some scientists) treating each other in the field. What's worse is that some of them have really learned how to bluff to survive.
-
I think it's a shame that blue-sky research is getting such a short thrift not just in America but all over the world.
Sometimes the stuff you discover from doing science for science's sake ends up being more useful than directed research simply because you end up looking at things a new way.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I think it's a shame that blue-sky research is getting such a short thrift not just in America but all over the world.
Sometimes the stuff you discover from doing science for science's sake ends up being more useful than directed research simply because you end up looking at things a new way.
The damage done by CFCs to the Ozone layer is a brilliant example of that. he people who discovered it were trying to understand the atmosphere on Venus, and ended up halting a problem that might well have caused massive damage to the earth and the people on it.
-
I'm not sure it's a new trait, sadly. I remember reading about the story of the guy who discovered the massive damage tetraethyl lead (lead added to engine fuel) did (Clair Patterson); even in the 40s, his research was beset by opposition from the major companies manufacturing t.l; they withdrew funding, offered his university (Caltech) funding for a chair if they sacked him, the suppossedly neutral US Public Health Service cancelled a research contract, and even excluding him from a 1971 national research council panel on atmospheric lead when he was unquiestionably one of the worlds expert.
(Lead, incidentally, is a powerful neurotoxin which has symptoms like brain damage, blindness, kidney failure, cancer, hallucinations, palsies, etc; it was legal in the US in solder for food tins until 1993 - so the tl being created by the Etyhl corporation - a joint enterprise between General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil - was causing massive lasting damage to public health)
Despite the almost immediate serious symptoms of their workers, the Ethyl company launched a long policy of denial - one excuse was that their workers probably went insance from 'working too hard'.
Paterson thankfully perservered and managed to help create the Clean Air Act of 1970, and later the ban leaded petrol in 1986 (which led to a rapid 80% lead drop in Americans). He also has the distinction of helped establish the date of the Earth from his work in 1953.
Incidentally, the guy responsible for use of tl was one Thomas Midgely (who once demonstrated the 'safety' of it at a press conference by holding a cup under his nose for 60 secods - omitting that he'd recently been seriously ill with lead poisoning). In 1929 he set out to develop a stable, no-flammable, non-corrosive and breathable gas for use in refrigerators (the gases used then were dangerous; a leak from a fridge at a hospital in Cleveland had recently killed 100 people).
What was his new wonder gas?
Chlorofluerocarbon.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
Anyhow, let's get back to the more serious topic.
Fund cut happen more 'severely' in the academic field in the recent years and causes a lot more the 'side-effects' in the research labs.
Because of it, the grant applications have got tougher and more compatative every year. The whole process of getting your research project funded and started has gotten complicated and very political because of the money issue. Some departments and institutions even face out scientists who can not bring money in on time. The research faculties are give a certain time frame to bring in certain amount of money. If they fail, game over.
I often feel disgusted by how people (some scientists) treating each other in the field. What's worse is that some of them have really learned how to bluff to survive.
Makes me ssssooooo glad I got out of all of that.......
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
Fund cut happen more 'severely' in the academic field in the recent years and causes a lot more the 'side-effects' in the research labs.
Because of it, the grant applications have got tougher and more compatative every year. The whole process of getting your research project funded and started has gotten complicated and very political because of the money issue. Some departments and institutions even face out scientists who can not bring money in on time. The research faculties are give a certain time frame to bring in certain amount of money. If they fail, game over.
I often feel disgusted by how people (some scientists) treating each other in the field. What's worse is that some of them have really learned how to bluff to survive.
The campus I'm at primarily focuses in on research. Believe me on the horror stories I've been hearing and witnessing.
A) Vague Laws- NAGPRA for example is a great idea to prevent grave robbing, but a vague law that means any pre-Colombus body (yes even a Viking) is called a 'Native American.' It doesn't matter if the body doesn't link to any current populations, or if it's evidence of populations before the current Native Americans. This is a case where a well intentioned "liberal" law screws with good science. Don't even get me started though on the reactionary crap being banned by the current administration. (not allowing a nucleus to be transferred into a donor cell because the mother's egg organelles are damaged out of the fear that 'two mothers' [which is a silly notion since only one woman is carrying the child and will wind up raising it, the other was simply an egg donor] will destroy society despite the fact that the nucleus carries all inheritable traits, after a single cell division the differences won't matter save different mitochondria, etc.)
B) Grants- In order to have research conducted, you wind up having to find corporate or state sponsors who see value not in the research itself but in the 'products' from it. A prime example is the ethnobotanical work I'm involved in. The actual research, despite its importance to things such as diet (looking at the foods they ingest and comparing to the health of the physical remains does more for nutrition than any longitudinal studies we can do right now) what matters is the image recognition software being developed to sort through hearth samples can be used for 'anti-terrorism.'
C) Grants- Teachers having to take time away from classes in order to get grants for field work. Once again, pure research is shunted by sponsors instead for work that can determine how we can create marketing campaigns in India (in the case of ethnography). As opposed to say being able to record data on cultures that are being destroyed by urbanization, anthropologists are being used as market researchers.
-
My only real comment was that patent laws are not so bad... yet. If you have heard you should know what I am talking about. The current system in the US is a first to invent system. This means if I concieve of the next hydrofusion power plant that allows the entire US power grid to be run from one power plant and I work to perfect it for the next 5 years before filing my patent application that is perfectly okay. I might notice a major flaw in my original conception and fix it and I will still be entitled to the patent.(assuming it is novel nonobvious and I'm not stupid enough to publish a complete (enabling as the USPTO would say) description of my invention more than a year before I file)
Here comes the bad news. There is currently a bill to move us to a first to file system. This would mean that if in the above scenario I am working hard to perfect the invention and someone else comes along after I have been working on it for 3 years and files a patent application that may not be as good (it might even be halfbaked) if that application discloses my invention, the newbie will get the patent and I get left with nothing. Now notice, his idea could be at a level I was at 3 years ago. I am 3 years more advanced and even if I have nonobvious improvements over his patent, I am likely to have to get his permission(by license with a hefty fee I'm sure) to produce whatever I now have.
Now who is truly disadvantaged? You guessed it. The small inventors are shoved even more out of the way. Why you may ask. Even now they have less funds and less man power and that makes it harder to be the first inventor right. Well now if they can conceive of the idea first, they are on equal footing to perfect it for filing. If the bill passes, they will have to compete to perfect it before a bigger corporation with 15-20 times the researchers. Impossible... What is thier other option? File a crappy patent application that is likely to not protect thier idea even if the USPTO allows it to mature to patent.
What is the bills justification? Major corporations(why don't we just hand them the power) are complaining that since the rest of the world is a first to file system they are disadvantaged in the rest of the world. The honest truth is that they are simply trying to gain even more ability to steal other peoples ideas. I mean thats all fair game right. The only upside to the whole mess is that patents are in place so that knowledge will be distributed to the public and a first to file system will help that right? The reason I would say Bull:censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: to this is that once a application is filed you cannot add new ideas or material (called new matter). So if in thier rush on the office to file they forget something, don't see a improvement or change, or simply don't write it well they are !!!! f***ed out of luck.
The end result? We will see the crappy shoddy patent applications that the whole first to invent system was there to prevent. Further the whole idea of rewarding ingenuity will be out the window. We will be rewarding whoever can run to the Patent and Trademark office first.
Does anyone disagree with me?
Oh and plus from my POV it will suck because I just learned all the rules of the first to invent system and now I will have to learn all the rules of the new first to file system. But trust me if I thought first to file was a good thing I would not care. I just don't think that we should forget that the patent is a tradeoff. Inventors disclose thier conceptions to the public and we give them the exclusive rights to it for between one and two decades. Not very long on a historical scale.
Oh I just realized how dumb I am being. Even under the current system a hydrofusion power plant would likely be subject to a secrecy order in which case you simply have to wait for the government(corporations) to use your idea before they basically tell you that your idea has been stolen whoops taken by the people and you are not getting your patent. Or something to that effect.
Anyhow now I'm bored.
-
I'm more concerned at the recent tendency (wll, not so much recent as more publicised recently) to patent prior art. Like Microsoft with the 'IS-NOT' operator, for example.
-
You have less to worry about there than you think. A patent is meaningless until a court enforces it. If it is truly a patent of prior art and not a nonobvious advancement of the old IS-NOT operator, then it is truly a waste of Microsofts money because all they have done is spend tons of money on toilet paper. Courts invalidate patents constantly. It's just what they do.
Microsoft will not be able to enforce that patent. The patent and trademark office allows far too many patents that are prior art. If they never did there would be no need of a court to be involved.
Now don't misunderstand me. I no more think the system is perfect than you but still. If I were a software/hardware company faced by a infringement suit by Microsoft over the use of the IS-NOT operator in general I would simply laugh in thier face and take thier patent and wipe my BLEAP with it.
Actually there is a way to file for ex parte reexamination which I am extremely surprised no one has. Could you post a link to something regarding this decsion. I would be very interested in it.
-
The problem is, how many small businesses can even afford to fight a court battle over it? One of the greatest dangers to the likes of MS is the small, flexible organisation that can rapidly innovate and take up market niche space; the threat of legal action would, I imagine, be very effective in coercing companies to 'co-operate'.
And perhaps more importantly, it's a very good way to target Open Source.
This is a very good example of the general idea; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/11/_redhat_microsoft_patents/
(I can't find the link for IS-NOT justnow)
-
You're right. Small companies cannot afford to fight those huge legal battles. But they can file ex parte reexamination requests. The jist of one of those is for a small fee you can submit your own prior art publications(in the case of an IS-NOT patent, a simple textbook from 1990s or before would more than suffice) and the patent office will have a new examiner completely reexamine the patent. These are fast-tracked to avoid the whole infringement problem. If you submit the correct prior art that speaks directly to the claims, there will be no choice for the patent office but to either reject the patent or narrow it to a point where it cannot protect anything about the invention.
Now open source on the other hand, open source is in a bit of a bind. If I patent a new novel nonobvious IS-NOT operation, the open source is not allowed to use it anymore than a commercial company. Patents not only protect the commercial sale of an invention but the right to use, distribute, or even make it for your own use.
After reading the article, I agree that it has much truth. The problem is that it is not the patent office's fault. The patent office mostly runs prior art checks off of prior patents and patent applications. The problem is computer software has not been patented for that long. There is not a rich background of software patents for the office to look at. Many of the examiners are far from experts in computer science. The end result is that the office does not catch a prior art publication(magazines, textbooks, learned treatises, etc) and allows a patent on something completely known in the art.
The solution... Any patent that Microsoft secures should immediately be looked into by the entire open source community. If the Linux community thinks Microsoft is doing this wrongfully it should band together. Once you find a pertinent piece of prior art you only have to submit it and the patent office will have to reexamine the Microsoft Patent. Then, if everything works out, Microsoft has to pay out the BLEAP on appeals and other things.
The problem is not the system. It is that the PTO may be a little lazy. A public outcry might help with that. BUT Wonderful Mr. Bush will probably just do nothing for science as usual. God who the BLEAP actually voted for that BLEAP BLEAP BLEAP BLEAP BLEAP moron. Could we please have a candidate that can count to 10 without using his fingers. Maybe one who can run a foreign relations department.
I hope people someday realize that the president is supposed to mostly stay out of affairs like social legislation and the like. His is supposed to be our one voice to the world. The one who brings peace, understanding, and good trade relations. Not the one voice telling the world it can kiss our collective asses. He is supposed to facilitate the making of treaties not the blatant violation of them.
The rest of the world does not hate us for our success. It hates us because of our bigotry, arrogance, and our stupidity. Where does it get that impression of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, the president of the United States George Jr.
He is like Bush 2.0 except made by Microsoft. He is gauranteed to have bugs. They need almost daily updates on him to keep him from pushing the little red button. Last week Cheaney was cheering him on as the Secret Service was desparately trying to keep him from pushing it while they updated his software. We are not safe folks.
-
If the PTO is not properly assessing or validating software patents, of course it is at fault. The system, after all, does not just constitute the methods of evaluating patent applications, but both the methods and their implementation.
-
No you misunderstand. It is not really a lazy examiner at fault.
It is because they are overworked and do not have the time resources or even access to all of the different sources they would need to correctly run a prior art search on software.
They search everything they have. They compare it to everything they have. Even if an examiner is completely sure that a IS-NOT operator existed previously they will not be able to cite that art because it is not in front of them. The examiners can only use thier own knowledge in the most extreme of circumstances where something is a perfectly known part of the art. (in reality I would say a IS-NOT operator is extreme but who can say that every examiner is brilliant) The other benefit of reexamination is that a completely new patent examiner will examine the patent.
The PTO is properly assessing the patent applications exactly like it does the other applications. The problem as I said was that there is not a wealth of prior art for them to look at. It might be out there on a University Computer Science Department Thesis library but the PTO may not have access to that.
Do you understand what I mean? The "inventor" may know they are trying to get a broader patent than they deserve but they certainly are not going to tell the PTO if they can help it. They have a duty to disclose but underhanded practitioners are not going to disclose unless they are relatively sure they cannot get away with nondisclosure.
I had post this long message for president Bush but it got lost and now I am too tired to write it.
Bush needs to tell his commissioner to get off his ass and pay out the money to have the resources of the patent office Software technology group updated or added to.
Bush won't because the corporations don't want that.
Bush is not the patriot he acts like. He has no clue of what a patriot is. A patriot does not trample on the Constitution he swore to uphold.
The patriots of our history fought hard for our freedom that he is taking away from us. The founders, from the Constitutional Congress to the leaders of the Civil War, to the Heros of the Civil Rights Movement would roll over in thier graves if they knew he was compromising our privacy, detaining people without a trial in prisons not fit for a sewer rat, and trying to amend our constitution on a whim.
Of course you all elected him on his wonderful platform of stripping gays of a right to marry that effects no one but the gays, banning stem cell research that could cure enumerable diseases and save innumerable lives because it supports abortion, and fighting the bad terrorists by taking away the freedoms that you completely take for granted. (this only applies to morons who voted for Bush) By the way, how many of you realize that Cheaney's own daughter is a lesbian.
You will never see the errors of your ways until you try to exercise some freedom that you don't even realize your messiah has taken away and get thrown in jail or fined.
Junior is so busy instating his religion and shoving it down our throats that he is neglecting foreign affairs. Does anyone else understand that the president is not supposed to base his administration on social legislation. He is supposed to be our collective voice. He is supposed to promote peace, goodwill and even better trade relations. Instead he is too busy telling the rest of the world to kiss our collectivve asses.
The rest of the world does not hate us because of our riches and our success. It hates us because of our bigotry, arrogance, and stupidity. Where do they get that impression. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the President of the United States Junior. We are becoming the most backward society on earth. We aren't yet. But we will be when we "elect" Junior to be our king. We will then bow before the village idiot. And I will never be able to write something like this.
Oh ya, and that stupid law that sets a cap on medical malpractice. You saps actually believe that huge medical malpractice suits are the problem do you? No, your doctor charges out of the ass for two reasons.
1: He wants alot of money.
2: He also has to pay out the ass to his medical malpractice carrier.
Result: doctors !!!! load + carriers !!!! load = More money than I will ever see.
The carriers will not lower thier rates even if the judgments are capped. If you are under the wonderful TX law which caps it at $200,000 or so, a surgeon can pay that out of pocket without blinking. THE POINT OF PUNATIVE DAMAGES WAS TO PUNISH NEGLIGENT DOCTORS AND IN SOME CASES BANKRUPT THEM TO PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES. The person whose family member is dead is not greedy. The only way to get justice is to hit the doctor where it hurts. To do that you have to exceed his insurance coverage. That used to be in the millions. If you don't go over that the doctor is not being punished. We are because his insurance carrier will bill him more for coverage which he will translate to us but they will still do that anyway.
Wow, I have issues huh.
That is my advice to the president. KISS MY ASS.
-
Sorry, just to clarify, what I am saying about the patent office is that they are not incorrectly assessing and thier methods are not the problem. It is thier resources and the relative youth of software patent practice.
-
That is still a problem with the system. If there's not the resources to thoroughly examine patents properly, then they should stop, state that they don't have the resources, and do a smaller number of patents, more correctly. It's not their fault if they are underfunded, but it is their fault if they don't compensate for that. If big businesses are being denied patents (or timely patents, rather) because of resource shortages, then they'll put pressure on the funders to provide more resources (and we all know it's the big companies who de-facto control the US government, thanks to campaign funding and lobbyists).
There's a lot of patents you can find in software that only require the most basic background to notice are prior art, anyways; one's that spring to mind is the obvious IS-NOT, Oracle trying to patent steps to convert SGML to another markup, and Amazon trying to patent the basic business methods used for internet sales transactions.
-
Okay, first, the patent office cannot simply slow down and do a smaller number of applications. That is out of the question. There is already like a 2 - 3 year wait from filing to getting the patent. If they do not keep up with the influx they will be buried under a sea of applications and the whole patent system will be stuck. Once they get to a certain backlog point there will be no point to even filing a patent becasue once someone has used a invention for a certain amount of time before a patent is granted there is a equitable argument if I have been using a invention for 5 years and it is now patented I cannot be stopped.
That and with the way technology is moving now it is almost worthless to get a patent because by the time 2 years passes for it to mature the hardware or software it regarded is completely worthless.
The patent office must do what it is doing. Talk to congress or the president about increasing the funding so they can hire more examiners and expand thier search technologies.
Like I said though, those patents that are being used that are not really patentable art will be invalidated. The courts loved smacking Microsoft around last time didn't it. It would love the chance to do it again.
Plus as far as software goes it may not be that most examiners are doing bad jobs as far as examining. It is simply that the searches don't turn up the results they need to reject the applications.
-
That doesn't matter to me. From what you've stated, the PO holds all the aces it needs to push through funding requests. I don't believe an organisation should be exempted from moderating itself - at the moment the PO system will not improve, because it suits the major companies; the system allows the types of patents like IS-NOT to be approved, does so in an amount of time that handicaps small business (all that time their patent is available for reverse engineering by companies with sufficient R&D budgets), and allows these nonsense patents to be created for the sole purpose of being a big stick to intimidate smaller competitors without the financial wherewithal to legally challenge them.
I actually worked on implementing a newly-applied software patent last yer (07/04 to 04/05 to be precise). I'm under an effective NDA not to reveal any details about that. But I can search the US patent system, and find that patent - and specifically the text that details exactly how that design was implemented (and this is still a pending application). On the UK side of things - not a sniff of those details. But that's massively open to abuse right there, because anyone can grab that, and begin an implementation.
-
Okay you are misinterpreting what I have said. I never said the USPTO holds all the aces. Congress and the President do. The invalid patent are issued to small companies too. The time to reverse engineer does not matter because you can keep someone from using your patent with the current delay. Right now there is a balance struck where your invention is protected if you secure a valid patent.
Plus there is no sense in even saying reverse engineering when it comes to patents because when you file for a patent you disclose every relevant detail of the invention. Reverse engineering only applies to trade secrets.
As to your last comment about the patent office search... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PATENTS ARE FOR :D. The point of the US Patent Practice is to make a deal with inventors. You disclose to the public every stinking detail of your invention and we will grant you the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to use it.
What I was saying about the delay would only be if there was a delay of 5 - 10 years before publication or something like that. If the delay got so bad that there was a 5 year delay in the publishing after filing there I believe the doctrine of Laches would apply and if not then I'm sure some other doctrine would. I mean if you don't know your knocking off someone elses invention then your pretty safe.
EDIT: the point of the publishing of every detail is basically a early warning and protection concept.
-
Preferably pure software patents will be dropped entirely, regardless of if they have prior art or not. The USPTO used to reject all pure software patents, but recently has succumbed to the stupidity. If you can't patent mathematical truths, why can you patent algorithms?
-
If the patent office can hold up the granting of patents for proper prudence, and the avoidance of delay is the key issue here, then of course the PO has control. Are you saying that Congress would sit back and do bugger all if the PO decided it needed to double it's examination time for due prudence?
Reverse engineering makes perfect sense, in 2 manners. Firstly, foreign markets. Secondly (and more importantly), you can incorporate existing knowledge in order to create a derivative that does not infringe the patent.
I'd point out that the details (I'm referring to) published are effectively technical details; they're the exact same blueprint I used to write the (well, bits of) code. They tie in a very tight implementation to the concept, but the concept itself would, IMO, be easily bastardizable to be a just-enough-different version. And that in turn would mean the tech advantage from being first to market would be wiped out.
-
Because every thing in the world is a mathmatical algorithm. Lawyers have a rule that someone should not be able to use someone elses brilliance to do thier own job.(this is the work product doctrine to all you law types) Physics is mathmatical truths. Chemists work with mathmatical formulas. Computer hardware works with mathmatical truths. They are all simply the practical use of it. No formula like E=MC2 should not be patentable. But if it were brand new, a bubble sort should be able to be patented. Just because you can express it as mathmatics does not mean it is not an invention.
Further, I am sorry but if you are going to take away my rights to my innovative software what the hell is the point of me developing it. What you are asking for is to hand the software industry to the big corps.
Say a little company makes a new innovation. Well, if they cannot have patent protection the big companies steal..errrr integrate that innovation into thier own software and bam. The big company got someone to do free research for them. Any other questions.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
He is like Bush 2.0 except made by Microsoft. He is gauranteed to have bugs. They need almost daily updates on him to keep him from pushing the little red button. Last week Cheaney was cheering him on as the Secret Service was desparately trying to keep him from pushing it while they updated his software. We are not safe folks.
LOL! good one!
And those bugs are incorectable.. the code is the mother of all spaghetti!
Of course, while I hate Bush, I don't belive EVERYTHING he does is wrong..
-
AHHHHHHH It just lost a 2 page response.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
But if it were brand new, a bubble sort should be able to be patented. Just because you can express it as mathmatics does not mean it is not an invention.
That's the scariest thing I've read today. You're telling me a simple mathematical algorithm that can be applied in thousands of different applications should be patented? Mathematical algorithms aren't "invented", they're discovered. There is a optimal solution to many programming problems after all (in terms of efficiency). Physical inventions are complex and don't restrict innovation much because it usually isn't possible to have a perfect machine.
Meh. I suppose Newton should've patented the derivative when he "invented it" so Leibniz couldn't develop it any more...
Further, I am sorry but if you are going to take away my rights to my innovative software what the hell is the point of me developing it. What you are asking for is to hand the software industry to the big corps.
Uhh, no. Most of the pure software patents are made by the big corps. In fact, most software patents are not even made by software companies. What you want to do is create a situation where virtually no software can be developed because every bit of code is patented.
Software patents just stifle development. You won't be able to make your "innovative software" because all the algorithms you'd want to use are patented. Furthermore, good applications aren't based on the algorithms they use. They're based on the quality of the whole thing. 3DSMax's 3ds file format doesn't necessarily make the software better than, say, Softimage or Lightwave. The GIF format's compression algorithm doesn't make it better than PNG or JPEG.
EDIT: To give some numerical backup for my argument, here's some info from a paper I wrote:
Firms in the software industry received about 7% of software patents in the second half of the 1990s (Bessen 6). 75% of software patents were granted to manufacturers, not software developers (6).
The citation is for "Bessen J. & Hunt M. R. (2004). The Software Patent Experiment."
-
There is a difference between innovative software and basic algorithms. If you hold back concepts at a base level, you hold back technological progress. What if someone trademarks the concept of sending messages in binary? bye-bye internet.
Or the good old IS-NOT case? Well, bye-bye every single program ever that uses a !=.
Or amazons patent on business systems? Enforce it, and say goodbye to every single on-line shop (pretty much; IIRC it covers use of a credit card for online transactions or somesuch).
That's the problem of nonsense patents; patents on prior art that are granted without proper examination, and financially uncontestable for many small businesses. And crippling for open-source software, which is what their real purpose is for.
Ok, fair enough, that's not patents per se. If you actually noticed, my arguement was partially about publishing patents when we have that sort of flimsy system.
Now... I don't agree with algorithmic patents, simple things like bubble sort, at a low level. Largely as it restricts technological progress. Demand royalties for something like bubble sort and you kill 90% of the work that would go on to improve that. Or at the very least, waive it for non-financial use like academic or OS. An algorithm is, after all, nothing but a formula (Specifically; An explicit step-by-step procedure for producing a solution to a given problem).
Patent an implementation using that, sure, like maybe a distributed bubble sorting topology for ordered message sending. But otherwise it's no different from patenting the equals operator. (incidentally, UK patent law forbids patenting methods for performing mental or computing acts; so a bubble sort would not be patentable)
To apply your analogy to the real world - we'd have one car manufacturer (patent the use of internal combustion, or some key component part), etc, because basic principles would be patented. Now that may be nice for the car manufacturer or whatnot, but for the rest of us, it's !!!!.
So perhaps I'm hurting small companies a bit, but in my mind the benefit to academic and private work is invaluable in actually progressing the field.
And my whole (other) point was... publish a patent details, and a big company can take that concept, reverse engineer it, incorporate it and make it just different enough not to be sued. Assuming the patent holder can identify the use of it, of course, in which case it is invisible.
EDIT; the European Patent Convention of 1973 bars Software from being patented, for the same reason as scientific theories, mathematical methods, medical discoveries, etc are barred. The regarding of software as purely a product is, I think, a very poor attitude to have of what is fundamentally a science. If we begin patenting software, why not physics theories? So that anyone wanting to study the Theory of Relativity has to pay £1,000 for each month of work?
-
QUOTE ALDO
___________________________________----
If the patent office can hold up the granting of patents for proper prudence, and the avoidance of delay is the key issue here, then of course the PO has control. Are you saying that Congress would sit back and do bugger all if the PO decided it needed to double it's examination time for due prudence?
_________________________________________
Aldo, Congress does whatever the hell those 100+400 fat lazy !!!!ing !!!!!!!s want to do. They are too busy worrying that some 14 year old rape victim might get an abortion in her third week of pregnacy or that two gay guys might be plugging each other somewhere to worry about the inconsequential things like patents and a balanced budget.
There is also the problem of statutorially mandated response and examination time limits(IOW deadlines). A applicant has a maximum of 6 months statutorially to reply to the USPTO(fine there but thats paying a 3 month extension fee too most of the time). But the USPTO has its own time limits set out in the USC, the CFR, and the MPEP. Reexamination has the shortest time period of all which is a good thing too. Some of these time periods can be as short as a month.
EDIT: WHAT I AM SAYING IS THEY CAN'T DOUBLE EXAMINATION TIME FOR PROPER PRUDENCE BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY DEADLINES.
QUOTE ALDO
___________________________________----
Reverse engineering makes perfect sense, in 2 manners. Firstly, foreign markets. Secondly (and more importantly), you can incorporate existing knowledge in order to create a derivative that does not infringe the patent.
I'd point out that the details (I'm referring to) published are effectively technical details; they're the exact same blueprint I used to write the (well, bits of) code. They tie in a very tight implementation to the concept, but the concept itself would, IMO, be easily bastardizable to be a just-enough-different version. And that in turn would mean the tech advantage from being first to market would be wiped out.
____________
Aldo, you make an excellent point. However, you are missing the fact that Patents don't work that way. First, patents exist for two reasons. Most importantly, to disclose the FULL OPERATION of any new invention. One of the requirements of a patent is an enabling disclosure that must enable one skilled in the art to make use etc the invention. Second and less important, reward the inventor for the disclosure by giving him the exclusive monopoly for 10-20 years.
As far as simple derivation, patents unlike trade secrets cannot be ripped off in that manner. Actually if you can figure out a trade secret by reverse engineering its yours. Back to patents. To derive a new patentable invention from an old one you must do more than make some simple improvement. You must have, as my patent professor would say, that BOLT OF LIGHTNING TYPE INNOVATION. In other words, it must be a new invention in and of itself. I could not simply take your code and reverse and modify a couple of things and call it mine. We don't award things that anyone could do.
If I have an invention and you make a patentable extension of it you are likely to have to pay me a license fee just to use your own patent.
As far as foreign markets... that is what the WTO PCT is for.
THERE I THINK I GOT IT ALL IN THERE from where it lost it all last time
-
Use the quote button or I'll beat you with a shivan plushy...
-
LOL a shivan PLUSHY
Aldo, if you invented this brilliant new type of sorting algorithm that was different from anything ever done before, would you want a big company to be able to use it freely whenever they wanted. Essentially you get nothing for your work.
The end result. I WOULD NEVER DISCLOSE MY NEW ALGORITHM TO THE WORLD AT ALL. I WOULD KEEP IT AS A TRADE SECRET AND SAY F**K ALL YOU. YOU ARE NOW HURTING THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE.
FURTHER TO SAY SCIENCE IS UNPATENTABLE IS WRONG.
The US Constitution give patent to inventors in the useful arts. I would say science is a useful art. No a formula without meaning is not useful. But an algorithm has meaning. It does something. A sorting algorithm on a computer is a useful process(Processes are patentable in the US).
As far as your car engine analogy. The inventor of the internal combustion engine could have patented it if he had done it in the 1800s. And rightfully so. If I invented the perfect way to utilize a hydrogen powered car engine I would want the rights to that invention.
Open source is still infringement. And rightfully so again. PATENT IS A MONOPOLY. NO ONE ELSE gets to use it.
A algorithmic graphics renderer is still an algorithm. The question is what level of basic algorithm are you wanting to protect. Must it be 10 basic algorithms working together. How bout 15, 50. Where does it quit being scientific fact and become an innovative idea. These are serious question not to be answered quickly.
Most if not all of you understand O(N) notation. Operation counts right(well I am changing it a bit but anyway).
Let just say the best IS-NOT operator on the market takes 3 cycles to operate.(again not reality but whatever.) ;) Now, if I made a IS-NOT operator that did the operation in 2 cycles that would be a hell of a lot faster overall for a computer program. I could not keep the world from using the 3 cycle IS-NOT nor could I keep them from using a 1 or 2 cycle is not that was different from my own. What I could keep the world from using is my 2 cycle IS-NOT routine.
That is likely what happened but I don't know for sure.
Patents restrict and help technological progress. It gives the world the state of the art. We can then experiment to move beyond that state of the art but the person who advanced it gets to keep that level of the state of the art for 10-20 years because he got us there. Does that make sense?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's the scariest thing I've read today. You're telling me a simple mathematical algorithm that can be applied in thousands of different applications should be patented? Mathematical algorithms aren't "invented", they're discovered. There is a optimal solution to many programming problems after all (in terms of efficiency). Physical inventions are complex and don't restrict innovation much because it usually isn't possible to have a perfect machine.
Meh. I suppose Newton should've patented the derivative when he "invented it" so Leibniz couldn't develop it any more...
Uhh, no. Most of the pure software patents are made by the big corps. In fact, most software patents are not even made by software companies. What you want to do is create a situation where virtually no software can be developed because every bit of code is patented.
Software patents just stifle development. You won't be able to make your "innovative software" because all the algorithms you'd want to use are patented. Furthermore, good applications aren't based on the algorithms they use. They're based on the quality of the whole thing. 3DSMax's 3ds file format doesn't necessarily make the software better than, say, Softimage or Lightwave. The GIF format's compression algorithm doesn't make it better than PNG or JPEG.
EDIT: To give some numerical backup for my argument, here's some info from a paper I wrote:
The citation is for "Bessen J. & Hunt M. R. (2004). The Software Patent Experiment."
I was not really saying something as simple as bubble sort should be patentable ever. It was completely obvious as a process before computers were invented.
Hash sorts on the other hand are a bit more tricky. Developing the perfect hash sort is a bit of an art. There is no mathmatical perfection with one.
But if mine works better than yours whose to say I should be able to keep it.
What you are missing is in terms of scope. Most of these patents are toilet paper because of the scope of the claims.
They may look vicious but they have no bite. If they can only claim a bubble sort in the most narrow of circumstances they may as well have the copyright to thier software. The patent will run out sooner and the copyright will actually protect more.
(WHICH IS REALLY PATHETIC SINCE COPYRIGHT OFFERS THE LEAST PROTECTION OF ALL IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES)
-
As a final edit that I wanted separate from my prior responses...
Everyone must realize ther is a basic factor many of you are missing. That factor is one of scope of protection.
To simplify let me say it like this. I can patent a combustion engine.
Can I keep everyone else from using combustion engines if I get that patent?
No.
Saying I am going to patent a combustion engine is alot like saying I am going to patent a sort algorithm.
You know I don't mean all combustion engines. What I mean is one specific engine or improvement on all engines. For example, Dodge might want to patent the new improved Hemi but that would not prevent all Hemi engines from being produced. Just ones using the improvement.
In software. I cannot patent the basic idea of a hash sort or a bubble sort. But if I figured out a way to make a new sort using both hash and bubble sort I could patent it.
Saying that by allowing software patents we will allow all algorithms to be used up is like saying that by allowing books to be copyrighted all stories will be used up. Its a bit of a THE SKY IS FALLING type attitude.
The simple fact is there is no way to use up all ways to do something in software. NOT EVEN CLOSE. YOU CAN'T USE UP THE BASIC TOOLS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. THEY ARE ALL PRIOR ART. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN INNOVATION IT WILL USE THE BASIC TOOLS NOT SOMEONE ELSES EXACT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOFTWARE. If you do that you are infringing on copyright anyhow and that lasts 76 years after the writer dies. If you used his actual code or even a very close derivation it is copyright infringment. But if you modify substantially his code to make some sort of innovative difference you can get a copyright and a patent of your own.
With just the routines currently available and hence unpatentable everything can be done. Turing machines you know. Just because someone is patenting a particular way of doing it is not going to foreclose all ways of doing it.
SO CHILL.
In Intellectual Property law there is a fragile balance. You must not stiffle progress. BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU MUST REWARD THOSE WHO ARE MAKING THE PROGRESS. (IOW these poor saps making this !!!! up gotta eat you know).
Oh and as to your statistics. Most smaller companies are going to put out valid patent applications. Those huge companies playing it by the shotgun approach are likely to get them invalidated.
Anyhow, I'm bored this is a lot like taking work home with you. Actually that is almost exactly like what this is.
-
Osiri wrote on 10-17-2005 12:53 AM:
Aldo I will try to publish this on the board except this first line
but man you need to calm down.
Patent practice is not as bad as all you think it is. Trust me I am doing in depth study on it and I talk with actual patent practitioners alot.
I would truly like to see this IS-NOT patent.
If you invented this brilliant new type of sorting algorithm that was different from anything ever done before, would you want a big company to be able to use it freely whenever they wanted. Essentially you get nothing for your work.
As far as your car engine analogy. The inventor of the internal combustion engine could have patented it if he had done it in the 1800s. And rightfully so. If I invented the perfect way to utilize a hydrogen powered car engine I would want the rights to that invention.
Open source is still infringement. And rightfully so again. PATENT IS A MONOPOLY. NO ONE ELSE gets to use it.
A algorithmic graphics renderer is still an algorithm. The question is what level of basic algorithm are you wanting to protect. Must it be 10 basic algorithms working together. How bout 15, 50. Where does it quit being scientific fact and become an innovative idea. These are serious question not to be answered quickly.
Most if not all of you understand O(N) notation. Operation counts right(well I am changing it a bit but anyway).
Let just say the best IS-NOT operator on the market takes 3 cycles to operate.(again not reality but whatever.) ;) Now, if I made a IS-NOT operator that did the operation in 2 cycles that would be a hell of a lot faster overall for a computer program. I could not keep the world from using the 3 cycle IS-NOT nor could I keep them from using a 1 or 2 cycle is not that was different from my own. What I could keep the world from using is my 2 cycle IS-NOT routine.
That is likely what happened but I don't know for sure.
Patents restrict and help technological progress. It gives the world the state of the art. We can then experiment to move beyond that state of the art but the person who advanced it gets to keep that level of the state of the art for 10-20 years because he got us there. Does that make sense?
Would I make the bubble sort, or equivalent, routine free for wide use?
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally yes.
You're viewing it from the point of view of business; defend investment, prevent advancement (i.e. stop companies eroding an advantage), and soforth. I'm viewing from the point of science, which is what it really is; would you restrict the advancement of the theory of relativity to one person, the single patentholder?
By your standards, 90% of the work that I did for my degree should havce been already under patent. Bye-bye Computer Science departments, then.
Can't you see that holding the state of the art for 10-20 years represents a complete halt in progress?
You've pointed out the problems in your previous code - if all the current tools of computer software were patented at creation, we wouldn't be able to type this. We'd probably be sitting at CGA screens that cost £1000 each, if atall. An algorithm is exactly one such tool; a series of steps, to solve a problem. If you include that as patentable, you must add the likes of the Observer pattern.
Also, you pointed out large companies use a scattergun approach - that's because the validation has failed so many times in evaluating nonsense patents that it is a no risk operation for them.
This is the ISNOT patent; http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
Abstract; A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.
That abstract alone should point out this is not just prior art, it's an attempt to patent mathematics.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Would I make the bubble sort, or equivalent, routine free for wide use?
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally yes.
You're viewing it from the point of view of business; defend investment, prevent advancement (i.e. stop companies eroding an advantage), and soforth. I'm viewing from the point of science, which is what it really is; would you restrict the advancement of the theory of relativity to one person, the single patentholder?
By your standards, 90% of the work that I did for my degree should havce been already under patent. Bye-bye Computer Science departments, then.
Can't you see that holding the state of the art for 10-20 years represents a complete halt in progress?
You've pointed out the problems in your previous code - if all the current tools of computer software were patented at creation, we wouldn't be able to type this. We'd probably be sitting at CGA screens that cost £1000 each, if atall. An algorithm is exactly one such tool; a series of steps, to solve a problem. If you include that as patentable, you must add the likes of the Observer pattern.
Also, you pointed out large companies use a scattergun approach - that's because the validation has failed so many times in evaluating nonsense patents that it is a no risk operation for them.
This is the ISNOT patent; http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
Abstract; A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.
That abstract alone should point out this is not just prior art, it's an attempt to patent mathematics.
Okay, first I am glad you are such a humanitarian.
:rolleyes:
I am more interested in putting food on the table and giving a home to my family. My wife deserves more than that.
I would like to see your response if you had spent 6 years creating a new method and then someone else took it and made millions from it without giving you a dime. It just like anything else. If I invent it, I get the temporary rights.
Further, so I suppose if you invent a new computer you will want to dedicate that to the public as well. Its the same damn thing.
Again, I will say, none of the crap that you did for your computer science degree is patentable. Nor is mine. That is because the tools(algorithm are tools of our trade) have been in service for a long time. All of the basic operators are unpatentable because they are obvious anyhow. For example, if I were examining an EQUALS operator I would be laughng sbecause that is simple logic to begin with.
By innovative I am refering to higher level programs. For example, a new graphics engine that takes a new approach. That would be patentable. Maybe the language translator, I did but not the graph object I used behind it. GET IT. THE WHOLE THING NOT THE COMPONENT PARTS.
I KEEP SAYING ITS A QUESTION OF SCOPE.
As to the IS-NOT application, IT IS AN APPLICATION. It has not been allowed. For all we know this is someone's idea of a joke. It got published under the statuory 18 month publication.
If it gets allowed at the level of the abstract, it would never be enfoceable.
WHAT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE IS PATENTABLE.
BIG THINGS. GRAPHICS RENDERERS. MAJOR ROUTINES.
NOT THE STUFF I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR YEARS.
Okay and don't you see that the state of the art is not the state of the art about 10 minutes after it is the state of the art. Doom engines already outdated.(I haven't really looked at the engines so don't try to give me a reality check I don't really care) So the owner might have a patent on it. In two years no one will care because it will be old news.
Computer Science is a science and an engineering discipline.
Mathmatics is the PURE SCIENCE.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
Okay, first I am glad you are such a humanitarian.
:rolleyes:
I am more interested in putting food on the table and giving a home to my family. My wife deserves more than that.
I would like to see your response if you had spent 6 years creating a new method and then someone else took it and made millions from it without giving you a dime. It just like anything else. If I invent it, I get the temporary rights.
The same as what I just posted. It's called a 'principle'.
If I was doing research, it would not be for the money. Or won't be for the money, dependent on where the next year takes me I suppose (so it might not be an 'if' anyways).
Oh, and the Doom engine isn't really a good relation to base-level algorithms or technology; it's an application. If it was possible to, say, trademark the concept of 'rending an abstract world description to a 2d representation', then we wouldn't have seen any change in state of the art (incidentally, that's - accidentally - very similar to the patent Oracle was denied for SGML to an.other markup).
You're comparing apples to oranges here. An algorithm is not an application any more than the principles of combustion are an engine.
(I'd note that a algorithm patent based on concept is too wide, and one based on specific implementation is too narrow, to be of value with such a low level concept)
It's interesting for me to note that reuse is, and has been for many years, the holy grail for the software industry. Call it hierarchical subdivision into libraries, component code, extensive frameworks, whatever; you seem to be against that concept as advancing it would require free use. Like with design patterns. Someone patents the Observer pattern..... well, they'd be rich and the rest be ****ed.
Word processing is an application. A Mobile Agent system is an application (well, a framework for one). A game is an application. An expert system is an application.
Bubble sort, Dijkstras algorithm, recursive traversal, alpha-beta pruning.... all these things are not applications. They are algorithms. Steps to solve a problem case. We don't patent the scientific, mathetical theories when we develop, say, a new engine, why should we do the same for software? The implication that computer science is not science is to me, complete and utter bollocks. It is, and you shouldn't be allowed to control the very basics any more than you should be allowed to patent the concept of using ones and zeroes to store and convey information.
(All caps is considered bad form, BTW. Like shouting. Plus it kind of gets on my tits in an empty vessels make most noise type manner and leads me to making addendums like this. which surely annoys everyone. Small caps with italic/bold emphasis is much easier on the eye IMO)
-
Aldo what we have here is a failure to communicate. Or at least a failure for you to listen. Please read the entire message carefully. I am doing the same for you.
First let me congratulate you on starving yourself. However, I am sure that you will get paid to do your research so you will not. Someone has to pay for that research. They do that by making money on previously completed research. Else you would starve for the betterment of man. A manufacturer is not going to pay for research that can it will not get to keep.
You may be a saint but corporations are chartered to make profit.(I swear this is a requirement in thier charter.)
Realistically you may not do it for the money. However, even university professors get a cut (50% at my university). They are doing research for the money. They need it to do more research.
Algorithms like dijkstras, recursive traversal and the like are unpatentable. There is no doubting that.
A new algorithm is not so unpatentable. I don't have an example because I am not researching new algorithms. Let's say a new improved version of recursive traversal was concieved. (this is not going to happen) It has never been thought up in logic, theory, or practice. Say it works better than the version it is based on.
It MIGHT be patentable.
Many of the other things you cite are not patentable because they are simply implementations of things that have been in use for many many years(just packaged or whatever). To patent a software algorithm takes more.
You need alot more than you have stuck in your head.
A lot more.
You must have a new idea.
A patentable algorithm is not like the principle of combustion. An algorithm that basic is never to be patentable. Neither would the idea work for patent in the engine.
However, a new engine design(utility patent) would be highly patentable if it was distinguishable over the prior art.
A basic algorithm newly concieved might be patented.
I cannot patent recursive traversal. However, I can restrict the use of my improvement. That is how the law works. I am no more making this up than standing on my head.
Look, you are not going to lose your ability to write code. That cannot happen under the patent laws.
The pressure for advancement is there.
If someone else has the exclusive use of a algorithm(again not something previously known), and you do not, what are you going to do.
You are going to either use the old way to do it or find a better way than the other guys way.
That is life.
It is not like you could never improve on someone elses patented idea either.
Patents are finite for a reason.
I don't want to say it like this but open your eyes. You may be as I said a saint but the rest of the world is not.
In a perfect world you would be right. All advancement would be for the betterment of man. All of it. No one would need money because there would be no need for it because we would all work without reward just for the sheer joy of working.
In the real world corporations control 90% or so of the worlds money. They must follow thier charters that say they are formed for the business of making a profit for thier investors.
A corporation cannot fund research that will be unprofitable to them. If they will not gain a benefit from the research they are not allowed to use it.
As for the Doom Engine example. I said it was not for reality and I didn't really care. It was an example. I figured you have crowned yourself a patent expert you would know what I was really refering to.
What I meant was... the basic principles of something as simple as bubble sort is unpatentable. The use of 50 different algorithms in a new and novel combination is going to be patentable.
Say my renderer with a nonobvious code variation does something yours cannot do. Nonobvious mean others have not thought about it and others would not see the improvement without research as well.
I can keep my renderer. I cannot prevent you from improving on it in a nonobvious way. Hence the improvement of computer science.
As far as your argument that it will hamper computer science. No. You are saying it will hamper the development of applications of the idea. This is true to a small extent.
By your example what you want is when someone invents a hydrogen engine he will not be able to patent it because that would prevent other car manufacturers from using that engine to make thier cars better.
That is utter and complete Bull ****. No one would respect that argument.
No patent will keep you from writing any code you want. A patent may prevent you from using the particular method that someone else thought up first.
Again, that is life. Get over it. That is the law and it will most likely stay the law.
You can petition your congressman to change it. Only the legislature can change the law. Vote for liberal legislatures.
Aldo what you seem to be supporting is open source. I admire that. I too like open source. However, open source does not have the right to keep the rest of the world from keeping our source code to us. It is our intellectual property. Whether it is by patent or copy right or trade secret, it is owned by the maker, inventor, conceiever.
One final thing for you to consider is that without patents, many advances will be trade secrets. Since you cannot see what method I am using to make the program faster(and in a big application it would take years to figure it out), I can hide my advancement for as long as I want to. Reverse engineering it would be difficult. Trade secrets are protectable for as long as you keep them secret and no one else implements the same thing.
Further even if someone else finds the same invention as my trade secret, they too will keep it a trade secret. In the end there will be a sharp divide among software developers. There will no longer be a free exchange of these advancements. There is already not a free use, would it be better to get them to hide it to so that no one can continue working where the patent owner left off.
Do you understand this last part?
EDIT: I am sorry this was a bit too far. I will try to get time to edit to be a little less sarcastic when I am out of class. Again sorry, I was not trying to come off as rude as it seems.
-
[q]As far as your argument that it will hamper computer science. No. You are saying it will hamper the development of applications of the idea.
By your example what you want is when someone invents a hydrogen engine he will not be able to patent it because that would prevent other car manufacturers from using that engine to make thier cars better.
That is utter and complete Bull ****. No one would respect that argument. [/q]
You miss the point. If you are allowed to patent such basic building blocks, you bring an inherent limit upon the potential applications that can be developed by anyone in future.
I notice you're trying to read me in as being arrogant ('crowned your self a patent expert') whilst switching between strawman and strawman (' I said it was not for reality and I didn't really care') example, without addressing the philosphical point I was making. That software is a part of scientific endevour, the same as medicinal, mathematical, physical, etc reasearch. And algorithm is effectively a formula; if you restrict such a base level idea, then you compromise the ability to develop it further.
At uni, I did work on bubble, quick, etc sorting algorithms as a 2nd year class. If that level of algorithm was patentable, and hence restrictable, that may not have been legal for me. And hence even the academic system is compromised.
These algorithms are as basic and - for lack of a better term- sacrosanct to commerical restriction as the theory of combustion is to an engine. That's from a computer science perspective.
As for misreading my example; my point was very simple, and you completely misread it. I never suggested that specific implementations should be unpatentable; but that the theoretical basis,the scientific theories, should not be restricted.
I can guess from your signature you have a vested interest in making money off ideas. As a scientist first and professional second, my vested interest is in releasing and building upon them.
[q]Again, that is life. Get over it. That is the law and it will most likely stay the law.[/q]
Actually, in Europe that's the opposite of patent law in this context, which classes software in the same vein as medical research, and mathematical and scientific theory; i.e. cannot be patented.
-
Not the basic building blocks
-
Aldo,
Your basic building blocks are completely safe. I swear.
Bubble sort or anything you learned in your course of study is public domain.
It always was. If you remember from your computer science studies, those algorithms were in logic and math long before the first electronic computer was ever developed.
Much like E=MC2.
The reason I keep saying that something that I use as an example is not reality is because I am not really wanting to look up a true example.
We agree on the basics I keep trying to point that out.
Basic algorithms are completely unpatentable.
New ones... ones that are not basic, are patentable.
Software is not part of a scientific endevour. It is a science. But the results of it are as patentable as a process in Chemistry.
If I come up with a new way to make a product in chemisty. I am discovering the physical truth. However that does not mean it is unpatentable.
It could be that new material could be a cure all. That does not make it unpatentable..
Your philosphical argument is that free exchange is hampered by patents. True.
However, the other side that someone should reap the fruits of thier work is also true.
There is a balance in patent law and IP in general.
It is not just that for any research you get to keep everything you create and everything that can come from it. Just obvious variants.
I am vested to some extent. I am a scientist as well Aldo. I have a computer science degree. I am also a Patent Agent and soon to be a Patent Lawyer.
I see both sides where you only see one.
Which is why I say there needs to be advancement. I also see that the inventor needs to eat.
-
Basic building blocks need to advance too.
-
Basic building blocks need to be discovered.
One more thing, about the MS is-not operator patent if you want to have fun I will help you screw them over.
If you can find me a old description of the is-not operator, I will tell you how to submit it as a source to be considered by the patent office.
-
If it is essentially the same thing, you will be able to block thier patent.
All I need to know is the reference and you need to be willing to send it to the USPTO.
Citing I believe is free.
That is what the point of our publishing before the release of patents. ;) So that people like us can stop a patent from happening when we know for a fact it should not.
__________________
At 5:01 PM
Man no one wants to cite me a reference huh? I was actually quite serious.
__________________
-
Man no one wants to cite me a reference huh? I was actually quite serious.
-
Lisp programming language
(neq a b)
Still, someone trying to patent a logic operator is... very disturbing... who wants to patent division?
*raises hand*
-
:wtf:
Okay, by reference I mean I need to know an actual publication that cites a previous example of IS-NOT being applied in this way.
Not just a common knowledge example I need to know that someone has publication that cites this thing.
With that I will tell him or her how to send that publication to the PTO. I am looking for someone who hates Microsoft enough to do this. I mean come on lets have some fun.
I need him ---> :hopping: (because he is motivated)
Everyone here is complaining about the patent system. Stop whining and do something about it.
Like this -----> Microsoft:hammer:
Like I said you even get the benefit of being able to tell your friends you screwed Microsoft over.
And you can be like this guy ---> :thepimp:
God I still love that first post on this page about beating me with a shivan plushy. :lol: :lol: :lol:
:wakka::hammer:
-
Man I guess no one is interested
-
I'm not aware of a "publication" (book?) but, won't any Lisp compiler or manual do the job?
-
Um, why would a Scot give a monkeys about the USPTO?
I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't already an ongoing challenge, anyways.
Regardless of previous use (search any programming forum in the last 10, 15 years and you'll find the principle of inequality cited), isn't there the test of obviousness?
[q]
Title 35 Part 2 Chapter 10 Section 103
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. [/q]
I'm not sure how you could patent (for example) '!=' but not '=='. It's mindbogglingly stupid and, as I think the CEO of Realmedia said, has no purpose beyond suing.
EDIT; actually, this is somewhat OT given that I don't think there's a single sane individual in the world who thinks ISNOT is a valid patentable feature. Even one of the named individuals in the patent posted in his blog sounding not entirely enamoured (apparently MS need to name individuals in the patent, and then have them transfer it to the company).
-
I know section 103
I was simply saying that you could help fix the problem you see. Why not take action to ensure that Microsoft gets screwed.
I mean you have complained about it for days but now you don't want to actually find something and send it in.
The test of obviousness needs to have a prior art.
Read the is-not patent carefully and figure out what they are really patenting.
-
By the way guys...
I guess it is a little late to tell you this but the abstract has nothing to do with the scope of the patent or the interpretation of the claims.
-
If you look through some of the patents, you can see some are entirely BS. They're so vague they could cover basically anything.
-
Oh come on it is well known that many patents are BS. The thing is they are issued by mistake or extremely good BSING by the attorney behind them. They can be shot down for free by simply citing it. If the commissioner of patents does his job he will declare a ex parte reexamination.
Just by saying they are BS does not mean you should ignore them. Nor that you should sit around and complain about it without doing something about it.
-
You must also realize that many BS patents have such a small scope that they cover nothing.
Even the Microsoft patent is only directed at BASIC (at least on cursory scan). Plus if I remember correctly BASIC itself does not have memory access.(been 5-6 years since I looked at basic.)
The end result honestly of the IS-NOT patent is it will have no effect on C++ or C or etc. Who cares about BASIC. Maybe Visual Basic but who cares about that.
Realistically it will do nothing anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
I know section 103
I was simply saying that you could help fix the problem you see. Why not take action to ensure that Microsoft gets screwed.
I mean you have complained about it for days but now you don't want to actually find something and send it in.
The test of obviousness needs to have a prior art.
Read the is-not patent carefully and figure out what they are really patenting.
a)I am not within the US, so I really don't give a monkeys; my philospohical objection is the principle of this type of patent, which only has a purpose as a 'weapon'. Were the EU to introduce software patents (something being debated but IIRC consistently rebutted), then it would become my direct concern.
b)The patent is clearly indicating a number of technical methods which are easily proveable as prior art; especially the memory comparison. It's pretty basic and obvious to anyone with the slightest experience of any programming; especially the operand description.
c) I believe Real Software (not RealMedia as I erroneously said earlier) are already challenging the patent as they see it as an attempt to disrupt their RealBasic compiler/IDE software. Also the patent specifically mentions Java/Swing as an environment (for the memory comparison part), and Sun wouldn't exactly be shy of contesting it (they'd probably relish it.......). So there is scarcely any need for my individual challenge. Were I even in the US, of course.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Also the patent specifically mentions Java/Swing as an environment (for the memory comparison part), and Sun wouldn't exactly be shy of contesting it (they'd probably relish it.......).
If you'd come out of your last court case with MS billions richer you probably would too :D
-
Okay but those are the big guys. You have been complaing that the little guy cannot win against Microsoft.
What you are saying is whatever the big corporations work out is what is going to happen even if you could do something about it.
I am making a point. You have complained about it but you don't even really care to do anything but sit back and watch and critique.
Further, as a Scot, it does affect you. If this patent made it through, any corp you work for cannot come to the US and sell anything that is patented. Is that enough effect?
In the case of a truly valid patent it could hurt your employer quite a bit.
-
It would hurt American software more and when their entire market fell apart we Brits could claim back the computer market for the first time since WWII when we had the only one in existance :D
-
Originally posted by Osiri
Okay but those are the big guys. You have been complaing that the little guy cannot win against Microsoft.
What you are saying is whatever the big corporations work out is what is going to happen even if you could do something about it.
I am making a point. You have complained about it but you don't even really care to do anything but sit back and watch and critique.
Further, as a Scot, it does affect you. If this patent made it through, any corp you work for cannot come to the US and sell anything that is patented. Is that enough effect?
In the case of a truly valid patent it could hurt your employer quite a bit.
You're right; yes, i have complained. But this is something which I do not have the time to do anything about. It is not a responsibility I am prepared to take at the moment, because i have far more important other things. I have a finite amount of time, and a finite amount of priorities, and this doesn't fit in with them.
Moreso, my issue is not with this specific patent but the system which allowed it; if i was to begin waging a one man crusade against spurious patents, I'd have to focus on the broad scope. But there are many organisations who already focus upon that issue.
now, i'm not overly concerned about the US market. Because there are 2 likely career paths for me. One is academia - the less likely in the near future - and the other is commerical programming. I've tried self employment, and i didn't like it :). So in either of those cases, were i to even be developing something aimed at the US, then I would be within a support structure that would provide local (to me) support and funding for addressing the immediate issues.
Again, this is a concern for me, but it's not a priority.
Originally posted by karajorma
If you'd come out of your last court case with MS billions richer you probably would too :D
I met the guy (from Sun) who organised the settlement for that, IIRC (or 'a' settlement; depends which one you mean, I guess). He was taking a place on the board of somewhere I was contracted to.
Told a story of a meeting at the Sun HQ one weekend to arrange the settlement; they'd be walking down the corridors, and every now and then there'd be somebody in working weekends..... who'd turn round and stare in shock at Bill Gates & Steve Balmer walking past them with their boss.
Quite a nice guy. Seemed to really hate Carly Fiorena (or whatever her name was - ex boss of HP), though.
-
:lol:
What percentage of the people on this web-site are US v. otherwise. I notice there seem to be more non-US.
American Software companies will probably realize that the real fun would be to band together and not litigate each other on these invalid patents and just target non US software.
That would be fun eh.
-
Aldo, how much work do you think I am talking about....
Okay, I give up.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo, how much work do you think I am talking about....
More than I have time for.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
:lol:
What percentage of the people on this web-site are US v. otherwise. I notice there seem to be more non-US.
American Software companies will probably realize that the real fun would be to band together and not litigate each other on these invalid patents and just target non US software.
That would be fun eh.
And probably legally impossible.
-
Well what it would do is make the foreign software companies lives a living hell.
Regardless of legal impossibility.
-
It would cost the US corps millions but it would cost the Foreign guys more and they would have to resolve the legalities to sell thier products. Further, what the US corps would essentially be doing is shutting off the US market to foreigners but the foreign market would still be open to US corps.
-
Until the monopolies comissions of the various foreign countries got involved. Lets see MS laugh after the EU quite legally removes 10% of their profits for operating an illegal cartel.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It would hurt American software more and when their entire market fell apart we Brits could claim back the computer market for the first time since WWII when we had the only one in existance :D
You're claiming the basis entirely on the Colossus? I think a Mr. Charles Babbage wants to talkt to you about that...
Yes, he was British, but you're off by a century :p
-
Originally posted by Osiri
It would cost the US corps millions but it would cost the Foreign guys more and they would have to resolve the legalities to sell thier products. Further, what the US corps would essentially be doing is shutting off the US market to foreigners but the foreign market would still be open to US corps.
Why? They'd just put protectionist measures in charge if business was being hurt. You'd see, for example, the EU going in hard on microsoft for various anti-trust stuff and whatnot (they wouldn't even have to address the patent issue). China would do what they're tending to anyways, and just switch to domestic providers.
Kind of like the squabbling over Airbus subsidies, or over bananas.
Don't assume the world would just kow-tow to US organisations; it's in every countries national interest to strengthen their native businesses, and it's only really politeness and the need to export and import that prevents major barriers to foreign companies.
-
For any of you who are wondering this would apply to any industry not just computer software if they were able to get enough invalid patents through the USPTO.
Plus I did some fun calculations in the middle you have to read. It shows the horror of our market.
Who said anything to the world markets. It is not anti trust when the US government is the real power keeping you out. We are talking about markets. It would be an effective trade barrier without congressional support. Huh, I wonder if this is George Bush's next protectionist manuever for US corps.
You see if the US patents effectively closed off the US market, Microsoft has done nothing wrong. The US has done nothing wrong. This again would require the help of almost every major software corp in US.
Further who said anything about the world kow-towing to the US orgs. There is no kow-tow. You see you could not punish the corps, they are only doing what they are supposed to get patents. Nor could you rationally punish the American government for enforcing patent rights of US corps(or at least invalidating them in the courts of law).
Actually more than likely there would never be a court battle. You see the foreign corps would have to pay so much on patent lawyers ;7 to figure out which patents would need to be challenged and to cite references and such that there would be a huge headache.
Again, Microsoft has done nothing wrong. What are foreign nations going to do fine Microsoft of following(yes I know it is exploiting) the law. What about every other software corp that is doing the same thing.
Do you really think the EU would cut off all American Companies from selling their products in EU countries.
Say goodbye to Windows(no loss there) but you would also say goodbye to UNIX, MAC, many of the Linux Software Corps, Interplay, Blizzard(even though it is a subsidiary of a Italian Corp), Dell(they have software), Gateway, every boutique software firm in the states, infograms, GPG, pandemic, Westwood(EA), every producer of applications(have I listed enough), IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Id.
You see the EU could not let any of these corps sell to the EU countries because punish just Microsoft and the other companies keep doing it. Plus you have problems with proving intent. I mean there are serious barriers to just hitting a corp with huge fines for something it did not really do. It did screw you over thats true but it didn't violate a law or even establish a trust.
There is no trust in a free market. It is still a free market. The problem is that the free market is hitting you over the head with patents. You see all those corps I mentioned above would still be selling everything they wanted whereever they do now. There is only a trust when a corp(Microsoft) destroys the free market part of the economy. There isn't one when there is an oligarchy doing it. (anyone ever heard of gasoline)
The price for gasoline is a perfect example. All the corps get together and set a market price. They have the ability to raise and lower this price at will because everyone else selling gas will do the same thing as them. If they want to raise costs to $3.00 a gallon on a whim they do it. (they did it here after the refineries were getting back on their feet. The truth is the gas companies can do as they want. Regardless of the stock market, the feds or whatever(especially since Bush would never do anything to hurt big business), the corps decide how much they want to screw us over. That is a trust, a monopoly. But it is done in the form of a oligopoly so it won't get slapped around by governments.
BTW for anyone about to say that Hurricanes caused a need for a $.75 rise in gas prices consider this.
2-3 years ago the price for gas in the US was about 1.15---1.35.(maybe a little longer ago but not much) It is now 2.50---3.00 right. Some would say huh that's not too bad thats only slightly more than double of thier gross income in 2-3 years. Well thats not the whole story.
- mean subtract
--- means a range
Then
$1.35(consumer price) - $.50---$.60(tax) = $.75---$.85(gross)
$.75--$.85(gross) - $.3---$.4(production) = $.35---$.55(profit)
Now
$3.00(consumer price) - $.60---$.70(tax) = $2.30---$2.40(gross)
$2.30---$2.40(gross) - $.35---$.45(production) = $1.85---$2.05(profit)
What is the result. A 270%---320% gross income increase.
BUT
HERES THE SCARY PART: A 336%---585% increase in net income(PURE PROFIT)
And no one has done anything about that trust.
I don't know the actual production cost but I have what I think is a low estimate for it so if it actually cost more to produce this gets worse. I have minorly adjusted production costs(probably too much) to compensate for the increase in worker pay and delivery increases).
if production is say $0.60 it is horrid the profit they are making check it out.
$1.35 -$.6 - $.6 = $.15 per gallon profit.
$3.00 - $.7 - $.7 = $1.60 per gallon
OVER TEN times the profit.
Any questions.
Anyhow back to software do you really think foreign companies would really stop selling to US regardless of the loss in profits they would experience.
The truth is within about 5 years the scheme would self destruct because our own congress is not quite this stupid. But imagine the damage that could be done by this happening for 5 years.
There are some reasonable ways to keep this from happening but you know what. All those would do is patch it. There would be no way to truly stop the problem.
Rememeber you cannot slap around the US government unless it is discriminating against the other countries corps. It is not. Your corps can do this too if they want.
-
Even if the patent was valid, they would still be sued for antitrust practices.
-
If it's the US government, then we have no problem. Whap some nice big tariffs on the likes of oil exports, withdraw international co-operation in the UN, impose tit-for-tat sanctions on all exports.... bing. Lets not forget that the US relies a lot on, for example, cheap imports from China.
And you're assuming that Open Source would be affected. Of course it wouldn't be. If we lose windows...well, a lot of countries have switched over to Linux now for exactly the reasons you indicate; national 'security'. And that open code base wouldn't be handed over. Plus the countries would, in this type of situation, protect their own companies from being applicable to US held patents. And during this time, the likes of Dell would be suffering; instead we'd probably see a flood of consumer electronics from China & Japan, software from India and Europe (India already being a key source of cheap software).
Sure, no-one would be winning... but that's the point. It's economic MAD; that's why no major economy can afford to practice 'proper' protectionism, and why we see attempts at it end in squabbling and like for like restrictions.
Would the EU cut off US companies? If the US cut off EU companies, of course. No nation would commit economic suicide by doing otherwise, even if the methods used to 'combat' it were not a direct mirror but something else. (i.e. EU buys cheap bananas rather than US, US puts tariffs on cashmere from the Uk, etc)
You're implying a free market is universally good. It's not; the main disadvantage is the likes of anti-trust, abuse of monopoly and profiteering. These are not perhaps economically bad for business, but they are for populace. Hence why we have checks and balances like antitrust, like preventing science and medicine from being patentable, etc.
-
you guys got to go back and read the message 2 back if you havent
-
oh and I know exactly what the taxes were at that time
I dont know them now but they are not that much more
-
Originally posted by Osiri
you guys got to go back and read the message 2 back if you havent
Speak the Queen's English, damn it!
-
What you want me to speak properly. Well, I never. I hate writing like this. I do it constantly for my work.
Also note aldo, most of my 50-55 posts are on this forum.
We have been arguing this along time.
-
You're on a forum, which is a place for discussion. Not a place for typing sentences without any appreciation for grammar or capitalization.
-
lol
-
For the most part I am using very formal writing. What can I say if I slip because I was running to class which I am currently in.
-
I find it strange you're measuring the issue of oil in terms of profit for companies rather than demand (offhand, the US is by far the worlds largest importer of oil; I believe the strategic reserve is also now being opened to counter refinery shortages post-Catrina). Oil embargoes would not be intended to put oil companies out of business, but raise prices and thus political pressure upon governments to react.
I would point out in the oil example that only really applies to the US domestic market.
-
I know that it only applies to US. European gas is higher right.
It had nothing to do with your response about embargos against the US.
Finally, are you really saying that profit is not a consideration in a oligopoly.
They can only do it because they all raise the rates at the same time.
ie no market competition.
The point of what I said was that the governments are not going to get involved.
EDIT: The price has been $2.50 since before Katrina and Rita. I should know huh.
why can I not delete my own posts.
-
Again I repeat you cannot punish a nation because of advantages done legally. Like I said, your corps could really screw us by patenting everything in the US so that our own corps could not make anything. It would just be easier for the US corps to do it.
-
The price has been $2.50 since before Katrina and Rita. I should know huh.
-
Originally posted by Osiri
I know that it only applies to US. European gas is higher right.
It had nothing to do with your response about embargos against the US.
Finally, are you really saying that profit is not a consideration in a oligopoly.
They can only do it because they all raise the rates at the same time.
ie no market competition.
The point of what I said was that the governments are not going to get involved.
EDIT: The price has been $2.50 since before Katrina and Rita. I should know huh.
why can I not delete my own posts.
European petrol is higher because we have better social welfare programs (in general). i.e. it's taxational.
I'm not raising the issue of profit vis-a-vis economics, but pointing out the political purpose of protectionist economics. Pressure need not be in terms of money. The whole point I was trying to make, is that nations will protect their own industry, both at home and abroad. This need not necessarily be by mirroring tactics used, so the likes of acting to restrict oil imports would be an option.
I'm not sure software developers would share the same common interest as oil companies, though, and as such I don't believe the same breadth of coverage would be possible. IBM, Sun, Microsoft, etc all have vested interests in competing technologies.
Besides, what you postulated - an alliance of software companies using the patent system (and presumable nonsense patents) to stop foreign competition - would be subject to a lot of lawsuits. I'm pretty sure most major manufacturers would either take it to court, lobby for their own government to act, or perhaps simply buy a smaller, US based company to circumvent it.
Of course, the WTO would probably raise sanctions itself if this sort of bar was applied to foreign companies only, and if it was universal it would destroy a lot of innovation within the US itself because of the restrictiveness of such patents.
I'm not sure you got what kara was originally (tongue in cheek) suggesting. Namely that such patent issues would stifle innovation within the US market and allow foreign companies to steal a march on new technology. I'm not sure how you envisage US co's could use patents to stifle all foreign competition, whilst managing not to destroy a lot of the smaller supporting US industry and making themselves very visible vulnerable to said accusations of, for example, racketeering.
(Incidentally, if the patent system allows that to be possible - isn't it another flaw? Surely a system which allows such monopolization can't be good for a free market? Certainly not for consumers.)
Deleting posts is restricted to admin, BTW. Not sure why exactly; might just be a permissions quirk.
-
lol you aren't reading what I have posted.
The US government might get really pissed off(Bush is a bit irrational) if you started using formal sanctions in violation of trade agreements and treaties. The problem with your idea is that you think you can sanction nations for bad corporate practices.
The US would not be violating the trade agreements because it is only patent related which is completely fine. Yes, there would be international pressure to fix it and eventually the government would.
The alliance not formal.
Oil and Software have nothing to do with each other. I am refering to governmental apathy.
It was simply a example about how we get screwed by corps and I assume you do too.
Okay, what you really need to realize the whole software alliance thing is complete BS.
I am picking on you because you think the PTO is completely stupid. The problem with the whole postulation is that PTO would never allow all these patents.
There is a rule of law that says that if I don't enforce my patent against all infringers that I know about I am relinquishing my rights after a certain amount of time. That pretty much precludes the whole thing. It was just a joke.
It am trying to get a point across that our system is not as screwed up as you think.
-
You're misreading me, then.
I didn't think I said the PTO (USPTO) was 'stupid', I said there must be some fault in the patent evaluation system for the likes of ISNOT to even be considered and not outright rejected (NB: must check that Amazon 'one-click' patent; I believe it was withdraw, submitted as 2 patents in 2001, one of which is granted). With applications like ISNOT specifically, it would seem to be such a basic case of prior art that any person experienced with the field would immediately raise an objection.
I also said I believed the concept of patenting basic functional algorithms was technologically stifling and akin to patenting medical discoveries, mathematical formula, scientific theory, etc - as the EU patent regulations state.
I'm not sure what you mean be 'software alliance thing'. I presume you mean the substantial group of people who belief patenting software will lead to a block in progress and will be adopted primarily as a bullying tactic by large, legally cash-flush organizations. I agree with that; I think the former in particular is common sense, especially with regards to academia.
I do not believe that 'inventors' should not be credited, but I believe that the system should also act protect the science from abuse and regression, as it does for the aforementioned other sciences in the EU. For specific applications, I believe there may be other legal protections anyway, without the same overreaching effect on the field as a whole, although I'll leave that one upon as I can't be bothered checking it.
I believe that, in the event - a highly unlikely event IMO due to simple business interests - of every major software company in the US banding up to block foreign competitors, there would be economic and political barriers placed within companies to protect their own business from financial harm. I don't believe countries like China, or organizations like the EU, are scared of antagonising the US if they feel it is in the interests of their economy.
I would also note that with reference to government apathy; that's what political and economic pressure is for.
-
okay the alliance thing was in reference to all the software companys banding together. What you are talking about I don't know.<
Okay this message is seriously what I think.
You think EU would violate a treaty over this...
No, they would not immediately violate the treaty. They would simply pressure the US through diplomatic channels. This would work. It would be a few years before any respectable government entity would violate major trade agreements to help a small sector of the economy.
Patenting of simple mathmatical algorithms is truly stifling. Which is why they are unpatentable. As far as the IS-NOT operator it might have been rejected outright.
What you don't understand I am trying to say is that every application, every computer program, no matter how large, is an algorithm. It is a process of steps. According to you, no matter how complex or how inventive the program is in its innovations, the creator is not entitled to anything but a copyright. This would mean that any other person company could use the process verbatim in a different language and it would be fair use. This is unreal. This is why I would say that Doom 3 is an algorithm. It is a very complex one but it is still an algorithm. Further, according to what you are saying literally copyright holds back progress because it protects the algorithms word for word implementation. You have to ask at what point an algorithm stops being a mathmatical fact and become a useful, patentable process. All computer software is essentially one huge set of mathmatical instructions.(hence functional computer languages Haskel to name one). At what point does the ban on patents for software stop being a protection of mathmatical algorithms and become a stifling of inventors rights to thier creations. No one would question the patentability of a process to make a new chemical. This all boils down to a mathmatical formula. The system is supposed to make these distinctions. No basic algorithm that you have mentioned is patentable. They have existed for decades. IS-NOT has been published for over a year hence it is unpatentable.
I truly believe that simple math is unpatentable. However, innovations that create whole new ways of looking at something in computers might be patentable. A new security encryption algorithm, a tertiary computing algorithms(three state: true, false, don't know) that is new, or a biologic CPU and its algorithms might be patentable. These are not just simple mathmatical concepts they involve serious conception and invention.
Further, I have been trying to tell you this since this all began. Patents do not stop progress where the patentee left off. The public can have anything that is not a literal infringment and does not fall in the doctrine of equivalents. You may not be able to patent things quite that close to the patent claims, but you can sure as hell exploit it.
In other words, a slightly different biologic CPU would be non-infringing and actually in that case patentable itself if it was patentably distinct.
There is a harder test to get a patent than to show non-infringment. Things that are not patentably distinct may not be infringing either.
Back to politics.
Antagonizing the US is one thing. Believe me someone should tell the better part of the US citizenry to open their eyes. Most US citizens seem to think the world revolves around US. I know it does not.
Literally putting in trade barriers and cutting off diplomatic relations because of a small sector of the economy is so far past overkill. You are referring to breaking some of the worlds most profitable trade agreements over a few things.
If any country in the world is dumb enough to cut off relations without at least asking a foreign country to act to fix the problem, I would have a heart attack. It has taken decades to get the fragile world trade situtation where it is. George Bush has already hurt it enough. Why would a country destroy what is left for less than $1,000,000,000.
Anyway, my fiance is home. ;7
-
I disagree with you. Especially over software applications (I'd apply the principle of hierarchical decomposition to that one). If you note the definition of an algorithm, it can't be literally applied to any form of program with more than one discrete, specific purpose (problem definition).
I was not referring to 'breaking' trade agreements or suspending diplomacy. As I said, there are subtle pressures that can be made; we've seen it before over things as prosaic as bananas. My implication is, or was intended to suggest these things would be done (that was not clear, I guess, but we were breaking into 'worst case' territory); but that the threat of them is one of the things that will, or should, put a brake on this.
I still regard software patenting as a destructive principle; by placing restrictions upon algorithms, I think we restrict the very ability to use and improve on them. In the former, that impacts their use in composite / aggregate systems and also potentially for academic teaching or use. In the latter, I think the inherent legal issues would discourage many individuals and institutions. Furthermore, I'd suggest that they would badly damage (and are often intended to) the Open Source community, which is both a major source of innovation and an important counterweight to commerical software.
Obviously, you disagree. That's fair enough; it's both our perogatives and in many ways a case of individual perspective. But I think my position is pretty well explained, to my eyes it's perfectly logical, and I would prefer to agree to disagree justnow than keep on going on with a fairly circular argument.
Because my fingers are sore. :D
-
Originally posted by Osiri
Also note aldo, most of my 50-55 posts are on this forum.
You'll find that number being reset real soon most likely if you don't start using the edit button to prevent artificially expanded post counts when you always (and I do mean always) post a second time immediately after the first one.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
You're claiming the basis entirely on the Colossus? I think a Mr. Charles Babbage wants to talkt to you about that...
Yes, he was British, but you're off by a century :p
Neither the difference nor the analytical engine were operational during WWII so I'm still correct you know :D
I said it would be the first time since WWII that we had the entire market :)
-
I keep trying to delete them but I can't and many of those double post you are complaining about are 2 or so hours apart and accidental.
Further if you are only talking about resetting them I could care less because I am not planning to get into the thousands anyhow. Actually I really am only using the board for fun and not for any real thing so banning me would not really be that bad. I am not saying I want to be but come on man. This is just a fun place not someplace where you need to be making threats about my post count. Have I done something that horrible. I mean seriously I am just posting for fun, do you think I care at all about artificially expanding my post count. I have more important things to worry about.
So anyway I can't delete them. Check about 3 of my posts complaining about that. And no you are wrong I am not always double posting. Just a few doubles at the end and a few times because I trying to get someone to respond.
-
Yes karajorma I am double posting again but this is for aldo. I think it is rude to speak to two people in depth in the same post. If it is not improper to do this I will start combining the posts. However since these two were essentially public letters I stand by my assertion of etiquette
Aldo,
I too agree that we need to just disagree. I have spent hours on this forum and have other things I have neglected. To that effect this will (I hope) be my last post in this thread.
I respect your point of view that some things should not be patentable. The difference (I think) is actually directly related to our views on the world.
You are of the opinion that Computer Science is a scientific pursuit for the betterment of mankind. To that end, you believe that all the advances should be dedicated to the public where the real benefit should be.
I too would share these ideals. However, I don't view the world in such an ideal way. I see that the major advances come when corporations fund them. I am not talking about advances like a better code. I am talking the major advances. These corporations will not fund the advancement without something in return. The result is in my view a balance. You cannot patent the tools needed for the science to advance but you can patent the major advancements.
The other difference in our views is what we see as driving advancement. You see the development of software as driving advancement. I see this slightly differently. If one entity(person, corporation, etc) owns the right to a better program, other corporations are going to figure out how to incorporate the patented knowledge and modify it or add to it to avoid infringment thereby improving the art. This new version may or may not be patentable in itself. It would depend on how much of an advance it was over the prior patent. Do you see my point of view? Competition is a mainstay of law and science. (Lawyers take this way too far.) Scientist do not work well in a pure competition enviroment but some competition is good. Corporations on the other hand work wonderfully in competitive environments. There is nothing better for them. They will pour billions into making their product better than the next one. Without some competition the corporations just use the other corporations advance until it is overly exploited and then and only then might they put some actual money into improving the art.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You'll find that number being reset real soon most likely if you don't start using the edit button to prevent artificially expanded post counts when you always (and I do mean always) post a second time immediately after the first one.
Neither the difference nor the analytical engine were operational during WWII so I'm still correct you know :D
I said it would be the first time since WWII that we had the entire market :)
I want a difference engine :nervous:
Even if we could make it out of a few dozen transistors.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I want a difference engine :nervous:
Even if we could make it out of a few dozen transistors.
You could steal the one from the Science Museum in London :D
What I want is the analytical engine. Who wouldn't want a giant steam powered computer? ;)
-
I lied I came back just for a look and Aldo and I were the only thing keeping this thread alive it seems.
It is completely dead now
Osiri <== feels very important
-
Continually reiterating your position is not contributin or important.
-
? who said anything about contribution
I said we were keeping it alive.
And now that you mention it if you look at the posts you will notice the arguments on each side get better as we went along.
we were able to hone our positions as a result of the debate.
So how does that not contribute. When you reach the last posts, the best arguements for both sides are restated concisely.
At least where I come from that is a benefit. Honed, refined, thought out positions are very valuable.