[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma
For a scientific mindset, arguing a point for which you can see flaws is anathema.

Actually, its one of the best ways to illustrate those flaws to someone else.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
representing an opinion as fact.

QUOTE
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. (opinion and may I say a wrong one)

A misrepresentation of my opinion skewed to an extreme that you had no reasonable expectation that was true.  I rest my case.

Ok ok, so I don't feel like searching.  My point is that just that little smart remark there is part of an argument with a misrepresentation.

Further, stating opinion as fact just because you believe it is absolutely true is not a valid defense.  If this were so no one would criticize religious fundamentalists.  We would just listen to them about how evolution could not be true and how Iraq needed to be blown to hell.

These are convictions that they firmly hold.  They state them as cold fact.  In fact they are trying to have children taught creationism now.  They say this is because evolution is wrong and it has no basis.  They know here is a basis but there opinion is that it does not because thier absolute belief says so.

I believe that is a factually correct assertion.

I'll explain why;
1) you stated that an algorithm the level of a bubble sort should be patentable (your standard).  That would surely allow retrospective patents to be taken out on similar level standards, excluding the prospect of a future where we have the same situation of 'tool' level algorithms with patents taken out at the time.  Perhaps where we have the unpatented bubble sort algorithm being taught whilst it is deprecated by a far superior algorithm used through business, because of patent issues.

2) I stated 90% of my work at university was performed at that algorithmic level.  That is about as accurate as I can be with a rough guess; I'd say 100% but for the maths components in my degree.  Either way, the 90% value can be taken as an indicator this type of work was an essential and vital component.

3) I then said, I could not be taught that.  I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's a fair presumption that 'unauthorized making, using, offering for sale or selling any patented invention' (my emphasis) would apply to the writing of a patented algorithm in code, let alone the composition of it as part of a larger program.  With a base level algorithm, I can't see how you could write it without breaking a patent; after all, an algorithm is simply "A procedure for accomplishing a given result by proceeding on a logical step-by-step basis".

4) By implication of that (plus the substantial damage done to any form of original reseach), I derived that Computer Science departments would be grossly damaged.  I think that would be true for a CS department if it were unable to teach basic algorithms for legal reasons, and even more so if it was unable to maintain research groups due to the same.

That is not a misrepresentation.  You said bubble sort level of algorithm should be covered by patent.  (You didn't object to the allowance of nonsense patents on the grounds they could be challenged, IIRC, too).  If I misrepresented you, I can only imagine it was because at some point you objected to retrospective patenting (AFAIK you didn't, but maybe I missed a bit; big thread).

Perhaps it's a bit of a strawman, but you set it up by saying bubble level should be patentable.  i'm not ashamed of taking that to what I feel is a fairly logical conclusion, and I sure as hell didn't have to make stuff up to do so.

[Osiri]

never said bubble sort algorithm.  I said that was too simple an example and bubble sort had existed way too long and was already part of the science.

[aldo_14]

[q]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..[/q]
(10-17-2005 12:05 AM - GMT, naturally)

The quote of mine you posted, occured after that.
[q]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.
[/q] (smaller for digestion)
 (10-17-2005 09:38 AM)

(It's probably also useful for putting that single line quote within context)

EDIT; hmm, that was odd.  Posted the wrong quote.  Apols.
EDIT2; ok, possibly a misreprentation of your view.  Albeit made in the context of you saying you were a patent lawyer, IIRC, and also concentrating on the business value.  So I don't think it's unfair in that case.  The 'science'quote... possibly could have had an IMO, although to be honest I'd say that is a fact; the business is in the application, same as you can have businesses building products using physics theories without physics becoming a business.

It was only later - about 8 hours later - you posted
[q]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. [/q]
(10-17-2005 05:08 PM)

Not that I want to nitpick, of course.  But it's nice to keep facts within their context.  I'm sure you understand.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, its one of the best ways to illustrate those flaws to someone else.

Not if you're arguing for it in the same way a lawyer would,  taking efforts to ignore the flaws and gloss them over as much as you can.

That's what a devil's advocate is supposed to do and it's not something I do well or enjoy because I find myself digging a deeper and deeper hole trying to find explainations that don't exist for the flaws.

Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make (and possibly yours too).

[Flipside]

I think part of the problem here is the strength of the word 'lie', it's like the misuse of the word 'Excuse' these days, as though it means an attempt to wriggle out of trouble rather than justification for your actions.

Osiris is right if you consider there to be no 'real' truth, that no single person could possibly be in possession of enough facts to state 'The Truth' without question.

To use the Lawyer analogy, a prosecution lawyer would say, 'On the night of Feb 25th you Murdered Mr X', the Defence would say, 'On the night of Feb 25th, you met Mr X, who had been looking down your girlfriends top all night, had then proceeded to argue with him, he threatened your gilrfriend and the next thing you knew, he was dead and you had your hands around his neck.'

Both are the 'truth', both are 'lies', depending on your side of the fence. Both play on human emotion in a particular way, The first is cold, factual, appeals to the demand to right wrongs, to see order. The second is human, it has a story, and we all like stories to have happy endings, we can empathise more.

We can state what we truly, in the core of our beings believe to be the truth, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong in doing that, but is it the truth, or simply what every instinct in your body tells you is the truth, and, at the end of the day, does it matter which it is?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma


Not if you're arguing for it in the same way a lawyer would,  taking efforts to ignore the flaws and gloss them over as much as you can.

That's what a devil's advocate is supposed to do and it's not something I do well or enjoy because I find myself digging a deeper and deeper hole trying to find explainations that don't exist for the flaws.

Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make (and possibly yours too).

Oh no, I was saying its a good method for revealing flaws. However, when it comes to playing devil's advocate, I'm great at that. I don't arguing for a subject in which I don't believe or find totally bollocks, if I'm having fun doing it.

[Osiri]

Yes lets keep things in context aldo.  I like how you disregarded some facts in your last post and made my point for me.  You just dug yourself a hole.

Upon further review you still misstated me even though I did make the mistake of not qualifying the bubble sort statment long before you made that statment.  There were many posts in between.  Good try on lawyering.  If I were lazy I would have missed your misrepresentation entirely.

You said that 90% of your university work would have been patent infringment.  That was a clear misrepresentation.  Let me explain.

I said when bubble sort was new.  That was probably more than 100 years ago and long before computers were electronic.  That patent would have long expired (they are finite you know).  As such none of your basic algorithmic work would have been barred by patent.  Especially not 90%.  

FURTHER YOU ARE COMPLETELY FALSIFYING THE EVIDENCE SINCE THIS WAS IN THE POST DIRECTLY BEFORE YOURS(YA IM YELLING CAUSE I'M LAUGHING)
I DID THESE IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER FROM YOUR POST.  (ie these were directly before your post with the one right before yours first and then going to the older ones.)

QUOTE
_____________________________________________
As a final edit that I wanted separate from my prior responses...
. . .
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.
_____________________________________________________
AND DIRECTLY BEFORE THAT AND HERE IS THE KILLER OF YOUR JUSTIFICATION

QUOTE
_______________________________
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.
_________________________________
AND BEFORE THAT

QUOTE
_______________

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.
________________________

There were more than three times I corrected myself before your statement.

So don't cry that your 90% argument was based on a sound representation of my statments.  

It was a skewed misrepresentation.  As such I do stand by my  prior post.  YOU HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT WAS WHAT MY STANDARDS REALLY WERE.

I didn't read much more of your post yet.  
EDIT: WOOPS I GUESS I WAS TOO HARD ON YOU BECAUSE I WAS WORKING ON THAT POST FOR A WHILE(I HAD TO GO TO THE GROCERY AND DO STUFF WITH FIANCE)
SORRY FOR BEING TOO HARSH. HOWEVER YOU STILL DIDN'T REALLY ADMIT ANYTHING.  YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT OF MISREPRESENTATION.

I also admitted that I do sometimes state opinion as if it were nearly fact.  I admitted to this practice.  You and Karajorma are the two who claimed to be innocent of any slight misrepresentation.

I also skew argument to my advantage.  I do not directly out right lie.

Plus I am going to just say that Flipside is correct in understanding my point.  Both sides are misrepresenting the facts.

One side is suggesting it was a horrible murder. Deliberate homicide

The other side is saying it was simply temporary insanity.

It was actually in reality probably a mix.  
Likely it was heat of passion homicide.  This is when you lose it but do not go completely insane. (a very simplified definition so please don't go look it up)


OSIRI <----- goes off extremely satisfied.



MAJOR EDIT:

Aldo and Kara:

Guys this is getting WAAAY too personal.  I can't believe this.  Why are we getting like this.  Kara, why did you go and insult me personally.  You suggested that I am a lawyer and as such a liar.  

Aldo, when you disagree with me don't tell me I am wrong unless I truely say something factually wrong.  Aldo you have to admit you got extremely sarcastic and over the top when you wrote what this was in response to.  

Guys, I want to have fun and debate but not get personal.  I don't like getting like this because it is how I am at work.  Well actually I am more respectful at work and I am sure you both are too.

I will say that this post shows that I am getting personal.  I have let the aggressive arguing get too much.  I want to back it off and just express ourselves and not essentially tell the other they are wrong.

I am guilty as you of going to far.

[Osiri]

I am trying to find a sign for statement and their for myself.  

(EDIT:  Okay that sentence doesn't make sense by itself.  I keep misspelling a few words... Statment and thier are the ones the sentence is about.)

The horror that is autocorrect has destroyed my spelling.

Sorry for harming anyones psyche by my horrible misspellings.

[Flipside]

< Looks at thread title >

You know, sometimes you just gotta sit back and giggle

[Osiri]

I know.  That is pretty hilarious.

Okay, I'll admit it now.  I am a little confused why you are sitting back to giggle.  We are still mostly on track.

Things got some what off track when I said that everybody misrepresents.

At that point it became a chore of proving it.

[WMCoolmon]

I just scrolled through the thread:

Yes lets keep things in context aldo. I like how you disregarded some facts in your last post and made my point for me. You just dug yourself a hole.

Actually I like this kind of thing. It's just an attempt at psychological warfare, or an attempt to gather one's thoughts. There are no facts.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Yes lets keep things in context aldo.  I like how you disregarded some facts in your last post and made my point for me.  You just dug yourself a hole.

Upon further review you still misstated me even though I did make the mistake of not qualifying the bubble sort statment long before you made that statment.  There were many posts in between.  Good try on lawyering.  If I were lazy I would have missed your misrepresentation entirely.

You said that 90% of your university work would have been patent infringment.  That was a clear misrepresentation.  Let me explain.

I said when bubble sort was new.  That was probably more than 100 years ago and long before computers were electronic.  That patent would have long expired (they are finite you know).  As such none of your basic algorithmic work would have been barred by patent.  Especially not 90%.  

FURTHER YOU ARE COMPLETELY FALSIFYING THE EVIDENCE SINCE THIS WAS IN THE POST DIRECTLY BEFORE YOURS(YA IM YELLING CAUSE I'M LAUGHING)
I DID THESE IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER FROM YOUR POST.  (ie these were directly before your post with the one right before yours first and then going to the older ones.)

QUOTE
_____________________________________________
As a final edit that I wanted separate from my prior responses...
. . .
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.


_____________________________________________________
AND DIRECTLY BEFORE THAT AND HERE IS THE KILLER OF YOUR JUSTIFICATION

QUOTE
_______________________________
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.
_________________________________
AND BEFORE THAT

QUOTE
_______________

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.
________________________

There were more than three times I corrected myself before your statement.

So don't cry that your 90% argument was based on a sound representation of my statments.  

It was a skewed misrepresentation.  As such I do stand by my  prior post.  YOU HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT WAS WHAT MY STANDARDS REALLY WERE.

I didn't read much more of your post yet.  
EDIT: WOOPS I GUESS I WAS TOO HARD ON YOU BECAUSE I WAS WORKING ON THAT POST FOR A WHILE(I HAD TO GO TO THE GROCERY AND DO STUFF WITH FIANCE)
SORRY FOR BEING TOO HARSH. HOWEVER YOU STILL DIDN'T REALLY ADMIT ANYTHING.  YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT OF MISREPRESENTATION.

I also admitted that I do sometimes state opinion as if it were nearly fact.  I admitted to this practice.  You and Karajorma are the two who claimed to be innocent of any slight misrepresentation.

I also skew argument to my advantage.  I do not directly out right lie.

Plus I am going to just say that Flipside is correct in understanding my point.  Both sides are misrepresenting the facts.

One side is suggesting it was a horrible murder. Deliberate homicide

The other side is saying it was simply temporary insanity.

It was actually in reality probably a mix.  
Likely it was heat of passion homicide.  This is when you lose it but do not go completely insane. (a very simplified definition so please don't go look it up)


OSIRI <----- goes off extremely satisfied.



MAJOR EDIT:

Aldo and Kara:

Guys this is getting WAAAY too personal.  I can't believe this.  Why are we getting like this.  Kara, why did you go and insult me personally.  You suggested that I am a lawyer and as such a liar.  

Aldo, when you disagree with me don't tell me I am wrong unless I truely say something factually wrong.  Aldo you have to admit you got extremely sarcastic and over the top when you wrote what this was in response to.  

Guys, I want to have fun and debate but not get personal.  I don't like getting like this because it is how I am at work.  Well actually I am more respectful at work and I am sure you both are too.

I will say that this post shows that I am getting personal.  I have let the aggressive arguing get too much.  I want to back it off and just express ourselves and not essentially tell the other they are wrong.

I am guilty as you of going to far.

The post I was referring to was quoted in my own post.  Your later posts did not say anything that indicated anything at that algorithmic level should be unpatentable.  You cited the bubble sort as a level of complexity.

You'll notice I said 'bubble sort, or equivalent' in the first line of my post. For all you posted, you never once said that level of algorithm should be unpatentable.  Did you really think I was suggesting 90% of my university work was writing bubble sorts?

In fact, if you read my posts in the specified thread, they all referenced bubble sort within that context, as a complexity benchmark set by you.  Yes, you may have said it can't be patented as prior art or obviousness; but you didn't exclude that basic level.

For example[q]Saying I am going to patent a combustion engine is 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. [/q]

That's what I meant.  The algorithmic level.  i'm sorry you missed that, but my point - consistently - was within that level.  I should have quantified it a bit better, perhaps - namely by stating a) the fear of ISNOT style retrospective patenting and b)that it'd bar new low 'level' algorithms from future teaching - but I would still say it was perfectly valid and honest.

Anyways, why the hell would I want to misrepresent you?  What's the benefit in that to, well, to me?  Misunderstand, perhaps.  Misread, maybe.  But intentionally so?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
Guys this is getting WAAAY too personal.  I can't believe this.  Why are we getting like this.  Kara, why did you go and insult me personally.  You suggested that I am a lawyer and as such a liar.

I suggested nothing of the sort. I explained exactly what I meant immediately upon you stating that the first time. And now instead of presenting a proper rebuttle of that you're going back to the original post (Which you misinterpretted) and using that a second time to claim I said that because you're a lawyer you must be lying.

You were the one who claimed that you (along with everyone else) lies when debating. Don't turn around and try to claim that it is a personal attack when I say that just because you admit to lying doesn't mean that everyone does it.  

You've already admitted to lying. You have no cause to claim it as an insult seeing as you've admitted you're a liar. I however do have cause to claim insult as I am not a liar and I take exception to you calling myself and everyone else in the world one just because you believe you can't argue without doing it.

It seems funny to me that your only defence when I pointed out why your argument is wrong is to basically ignore my post clarifying the matter and basically "lie" about how I was insulting you even though you were fully aware that I wasn't doing anything of the sort.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
Osiris is right if you consider there to be no 'real' truth, that no single person could possibly be in possession of enough facts to state 'The Truth' without question.

 If all he was stating is that you can't ever know the truth I'd have agreed.  

Instead he claims that everyone deliberately misrepresents their own picture of the truth in order to make their own opinion appear correct and that I do take exception to. The fact that you can't ever know the real truth is completely irrelevant to that opinion.

Osiri is claiming that in your head you hold all the evidence that you know (Your version of the truth) and in any debate you only mention the evidence that supports your view of the matter.

I happen to take exception to that view and I especially don't like being told that is how I act.

Originally posted by Flipside
To use the Lawyer analogy, a prosecution lawyer would say, 'On the night of Feb 25th you Murdered Mr X', the Defence would say, 'On the night of Feb 25th, you met Mr X, who had been looking down your girlfriends top all night, had then proceeded to argue with him, he threatened your gilrfriend and the next thing you knew, he was dead and you had your hands around his neck.'

Both are the 'truth', both are 'lies', depending on your side of the fence. Both play on human emotion in a particular way, The first is cold, factual, appeals to the demand to right wrongs, to see order. The second is human, it has a story, and we all like stories to have happy endings, we can empathise more.

Now while that may be the case in a court of law (where you are dealing with a person's emotions) it doesn't have any place in most discussions.

Let me give you an alternate scientist analogy to compare against your lawyer one.

When two scientists who support opposing theories write papers on a subject they present all the data they've collected and point to why they believe that the data supports their particular hypothesis. Even though both draw different conclusions neither alters the basic data which may often contain trends which support the other scientists hypothesis. As long as the majority of the data supports their hypothesis and they can explain away the other data both are being honest.

If I am debating climate change or patent law my argument should be like the scientific one. Emotions are not involved in either subject only cold hard fact. If I'm talking about what bands are good or why a game isn't or why I feel that Timmy Mallet is a wanker that's another matter but there is no need to lie in a debate which is based on logic. You're not supposed to be presenting an emotional argument. If you have to lie to present your argument it actually points to the fact that you probably don't understand the subject well enough to be talking about it.

[Osiri]

Aldo again you misrepresent me.

YOUR post is the one that suggested I believed bubble sort to be patentable.  The quote of mine did not say so.  You are now citing the first line of YOUR OWN QUESTIONED post to prove yourself correct.  YOU ARE STILL DISREGARDING THE INTERMEDIATE POSTS.  I MEAN SHOULD I POST ALL OF THEM IN FULL TEXT TO SHOW YOU OR WOULD YOU JUST ADMIT IT.

Anyway note the first line of your post.  NOT MINE.  A COMBINATION OF BUBBLE SORT AND A PARTICULAR IMPLEMENTATON OF HASH SORT THAT WAS NEW NONNOVEL ETC MIGHT YES MIGHT BE PATENTABLE.

You still did not represent me correctly regardless of what my intermediate messages said.  JUST ADMIT IT.

You said your university work would have been patented.  This completely disregarded the fact that patents are finite and would have long expired even if I did think the == operator was patentable.

Those tools ==, bubble, all would be expired patents.

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.

[Osiri]

Kara

sirst that was an edit.  I hadn't gotten to you yet.  Thank  you for misrepresenting that edit as an admission that I didn't have a proper rebuttal aimed at you.  It was only in regard to how we are letting emotions get in the way.  You misrepresented it as an admission and proved my point....

WE ALL DO IT FROM TIME TO TIME.


Further you misrepresent me admitting that I have lied in the past to mean that I am a complete liar and I should have no problem with this label.

Kara, if you are going to post saying you don't misrepresent....

DON'T DO IT IN THE POST YOU ARE SAYING IT IN.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
sirst that was an edit.  I hadn't gotten to you yet.  

You posted that 10 hours before my reply, fail to mention my post completely and expect me to know that? I'm not telepathic you know. You get judged on what you write and not what is going on in your head.

The facts are blatently clear. I post something. You take it as an attack. I explain it's not an attack. You ignore my answer and continue to take it as an attack even though you now have evidence proving that it wasn't one.

Originally posted by Osiri
Thank  you for misrepresenting that edit as an admission that I didn't have a proper rebuttal aimed at you.  It was only in regard to how we are letting emotions get in the way.  You misrepresented it as an admission and proved my point....  

I proved nothing of the sort. I turn up 8 hours after you've posted when you've neither posted a rebuttle nor posted to say that you'll be adding one later. That's not a misrepresentation. You had time at least to post that much. You chose not to.

You're the one shouting and acting as though you're the victim of a heinous attempt to insult you. You restated that claim in your edited post even after I had posted explaining what was going on.
 I'm not misrepresenting you at all. In fact it is the other way around. You're claiming that I'm getting emotional and insulting you when I have done nothing of the sort. If you can prove that my intention was to insult you feel free to do so. Seeing as how

a) I doubt you're telepathic either
b) I wasn't trying to insult you

I doubt you'll find it easy.

Originally posted by Osiri
Further you misrepresent me admitting that I have lied in the past to mean that I am a complete liar and I should have no problem with this label.

I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest. You've basically said that if we have differing opinions you will lie by ommitting anything you know to be true in order to support those opinions.

I never said you were a complete liar. Only that by your own admission your posts on any subject couldn't even be taken as being justified by all the evidence you know and was therefore suspect.

When a witness is caught lying in a trial it doesn't mean that every word he says is false but it does mean that any evidence he gave must be treated with distrust. You chose to reveal you were lying so pardon me if I choose to wish to verify everything you say independantly. You've got no one to blame for your damaged credibility but yourself. Temper tantrums like in your previous post to Aldo do nothing to further that credibility and you'd be advised to avoid them if you want to continue this discussion with me.

Originally posted by Osiri
Kara, if you are going to post saying you don't misrepresent....

DON'T DO IT IN THE POST YOU ARE SAYING IT IN.

I suggest you re-read my posts on this subject before you continue with such comments. You are wrong. I have not misrepresented you. At worst I have misunderstood you (and I can't even find any cases of that). I have certainly not chosen to post your opinion on any matter as being different from what I understood it to be from your posts.

You on the other hand have chosen to ignore a post from me saying that I didn't insult all lawyers (A stupid thing to do seeing as I have relatives who are lawyers!) and reiterated that I have insulted them even though you know this not to be true.

You are the one doing the misrepresentation and now you are using every lawyers trick in the book to try to make it look like you are the victim. Stop it. I'm not going to fall for it and I doubt that anyone else interested in this topic is either.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo again you misrepresent me.

YOUR post is the one that suggested I believed bubble sort to be patentable.  The quote of mine did not say so.  You are now citing the first line of YOUR OWN QUESTIONED post to prove yourself correct.  YOU ARE STILL DISREGARDING THE INTERMEDIATE POSTS.  I MEAN SHOULD I POST ALL OF THEM IN FULL TEXT TO SHOW YOU OR WOULD YOU JUST ADMIT IT.

Anyway note the first line of your post.  NOT MINE.  A COMBINATION OF BUBBLE SORT AND A PARTICULAR IMPLEMENTATON OF HASH SORT THAT WAS NEW NONNOVEL ETC MIGHT YES MIGHT BE PATENTABLE.

You still did not represent me correctly regardless of what my intermediate messages said.  JUST ADMIT IT.

You said your university work would have been patented.  This completely disregarded the fact that patents are finite and would have long expired even if I did think the == operator was patentable.

Those tools ==, bubble, all would be expired patents.



 

Just a short reply cos I'm at work;
I have given you my honest view of your statements, as I read them and why i objected to them.  As part of that, I've highlighted the specific parts which caused that particular opinion, and the context I was speaking within.

I think I was pretty clear in my previous post why you may have misconstrued my meaning, but I'll restate my objection; that patents could be applied retrospectively (as evidenced by existing applications; including the granted amazon e-business patent, and ISNOT, both which have been filed despite the obviousness and prior art), and also that this would apply to future developments at the same complexity and algorithmic level.

I'm not sure I can restate that any clearer than already.

 If you don't like that view, or think it my reading of your posts is mistaken, then fair enough - I'm only human.  But I did not lie as to my interpretation of that.  I gave an honest derivation of what I thought you had asked for / believed within.

Your implication is that I essentially read your posts, disregarded them, and made **** up.  That's complete rubbish, and I regard it as an insulting insinuation without any basis, whether made in caps or no caps.

I'm the one posting my honest traing of reasoning here, after all.  Have you?  I seem to remember you citing a lot of 'example' in that particular thread before backtracking and declaring them irrelevant.  Can you explain why you cited bubble sort in the first place if it was a completely irrelevant analogy?  How can I misrepresent you, if you're misrepresenting yourself through that sort of contradiction?

It's not as if I didn't quote the exact post I was replying to in my own post, after all.

If you want to quote all those 3 posts in totality, fire away.  But I don't think you'll be able to read my mind as to what I read as their meaning and content.  Certainly I'm not sure how you could contradict my stated reasoning.

[Osiri]

Quote:
Kara
_______________________________
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest. You've basically said that if we have differing opinions you will lie by ommitting
anything you know to be true in order to support those opinions.
_______________________________

I have said nothing of this sort.  I said that I would not omit anything I knew.  I said I would downplay the weaknesses and emphasize the strengths.  You are completely misrepresenting my statement in an extreme way.  Find any post I said *I* would completely omit the truth.

Further the point is you are representing my standards as something you know they are not.

YOU ABSOLUTELY KNEW THAT I WAS NOT REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A OUTRIGHT LIAR YET THIS IS WHAT YOU SAY MY STANDARDS ARE ACCORDING TO ME.

That was the misrepresentation I said you had committed.  You have and you can't say you haven't.  Tell me that you truly believed that I was saying that I was an absolute liar.



_______________________________________________

Aldo, you have finally got my point but you are still arguing it.
You are presenting the facts as YOU see them as you want to read them.  You did not take notice of the 3 times I corrected myself.  You just saw the post that SUPPORTED your argument and disregarded reading the other ones.  

I clearly stated before your post that I didn't mean literally that bubble sort itself would be patentable.

Further, it is irrelevant exactly what your stance on patents was.  

My point is that your statements were a misrepresentation of my standards.  Regardless of anything you knew my standards were not that 90% of the algorithms in CS should CURRENTLY be patented.  As such you misrepresented me as a part of your argument which is exactly what you are trying to say you did not do.

If you really believed that a Computer Scientist believed that 90% of my own work should have been illegal can I have what your on.

Remember I too have a CS degree.

Anyway you guys have both misrepresented me.  This was done by taking what your THOUGHT I was saying and exaggerating it to an extreme.