[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.

[Osiri]

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.

[Osiri]

The price has been $2.50 since before Katrina and Rita.  I should know huh.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Osiri]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Osiri]

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.  

[aldo_14]

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.

[karajorma]

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

Neither the difference nor the analytical engine were operational during WWII so I'm still correct you know

I said it would be the first time since WWII that we had the entire market

[Osiri]

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.

[Osiri]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

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

I said it would be the first time since WWII that we had the entire market

I want a difference engine
Even if we could make it out of a few dozen transistors.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I want a difference engine
Even if we could make it out of a few dozen transistors.

You could steal the one from the Science Museum in London  

What I want is the analytical engine. Who wouldn't want a giant steam powered computer?

[Osiri]

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

[Grey Wolf]

Continually reiterating your position is not contributin or important.

[Osiri]

? 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.