Nice screed but you ignore the uncomfortable, for you it seems, fact that all knowledge is incremental. That doesn't mean that major discoveries and understandings don't remain to be found.
Edison, bless him, is as well known for filching others work as he is for his original work (he just marketed it better), the Wright Brothers build on what came before (incremental) and so on. I'm not taking away from either of them saying that just pointing out that their work was hardly totally original as you seem to think but it was incremental.
When I first began studying geography in the early 1960s the idea of continental drift was still being debated rather than universally accepted.
Thirty years ago we still thought dinosaurs were lumbering, stupid lizards which we now know is very wrong nor did we know they were, in many ways, still with us though we call them birds now.
Twenty-five years ago the heart valve operation I had 4 years ago was considered highly risky rather than routine as it is now.
All of this built on what came before and, therefore, incremental.
In fact is you read, you did read it didn't you?, the post you'll see what's being talked about is the incremental growth of knowledge and discovery whether in pure science or any other discipline.
That's why secrets are so fleeting, trade and military ones even more so because there's a high motivation to find out what people are hiding.
As for your closing crack at scientists, is it that you think they've done nothing useful or am I seeing the green eyed monster at work?
Does all this about copyrights and TAMs and angry dude trollers mean that people with photographic memories are, by their definition, guilty of piracy and therefore criminals?
If you get to be one with a supercoying machine in your pocket surely it must apply if it's a gelatenous substance located between your ears that you were born with?!
Wonder what the MPAA, RIAA, TAM etc think of that? ;-)
"SOFTWARE == HARDWARE (made of silicon and used in CPU chips, microcontrollers, DSPs, FPGAs, ASICs etc. to control device operations)"
What you've described is hardware. All completely useless and rather pointless bits of sand until SOFTWARE (aka algorithms) are run through it.
Your equivalence no more makes hardware the equivalent of software as it does make electricity the equivalent of a wall switch and a light simply because you complete the connection in the switch.
Unless, of course, you want to say electricity is the equivalent of the hardware is runs on.
You forgot that the citizenry, who theoretically employ the government and who really pay them and for them are left out of this cozy transaction.
Of course, if you're government and private industry the citizenry doesn't exist. We're reduced to interest groups, stakeholders and dangerous extremists when we do things like demand our rights or ask for thinks like coherent and unspun explanations.
Oh to hell with it. Citizens are dangerous extremists. Every single one of them (us)!
Well, I thought so till I saw the University cited is in Melbourne the very Australian State that wants so much to put up a firewall around the entire Internet and isolate the land down under almost as effectively as the Great Firewall of China does.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
Your problem is, however, that you keep missing with that bat of yours labelled "special moron experience". Either that or it's a nerf bat marked "property of a complete and total idiot", take your pick.
You'd have us believe you follow patent and copyright issues like a hawk and haven't heard of Groklaw, PJ (aka Pamela Jones if you must know) and the SCO vs damned near everyone cases?
And sometimes dipshites who haven't a clue what software is will say software isn't math.
If the ruling does leave open the issue of which test to use to decide if a business process and/or software is patentable as it appears to then lower courts may, legally, change the test they use to make that determination quite legally and in line with this ruling without waiting for SCOTUS to rule specifically.
For what it's worth, PJ, at Groklaw has written a long, deep post that basically comes to the same conclusion as Mike though she seems the think the death of business methods patents will come more quickly than software patents.
She focuses more on Justice Stevens than on Justice Scalia but the trail leads to a the same conclusion.
One of the arguments against software patents that PJ has used over the years is that, at the end of the day, all software boils down to Please show me something patentable in software that is not an algorithm. I mean "show me" literally. Show me in the software code something patentable that is not an algorithm, since algorithms are not patentable subject matter. And that's her challenge to the TAMs of the world, who is presumably a TAPJ(?) though that doesn't roll off the tongue quite so nicely, one which, like most others, he hasn't answered yet.
On the post: Woot Asks AP To Pay Up For Quoting Woot Blog Post Without Paying [Updated]
Ahhhh....
How does it feel AP?
Gotta love it!
On the post: The Myth That Without Gov't Monopolies Or Subsidies, Discoveries Will Be Hidden By Secrets
Re: All Knowledge Is Incremental
Edison, bless him, is as well known for filching others work as he is for his original work (he just marketed it better), the Wright Brothers build on what came before (incremental) and so on. I'm not taking away from either of them saying that just pointing out that their work was hardly totally original as you seem to think but it was incremental.
When I first began studying geography in the early 1960s the idea of continental drift was still being debated rather than universally accepted.
Thirty years ago we still thought dinosaurs were lumbering, stupid lizards which we now know is very wrong nor did we know they were, in many ways, still with us though we call them birds now.
Twenty-five years ago the heart valve operation I had 4 years ago was considered highly risky rather than routine as it is now.
All of this built on what came before and, therefore, incremental.
In fact is you read, you did read it didn't you?, the post you'll see what's being talked about is the incremental growth of knowledge and discovery whether in pure science or any other discipline.
That's why secrets are so fleeting, trade and military ones even more so because there's a high motivation to find out what people are hiding.
As for your closing crack at scientists, is it that you think they've done nothing useful or am I seeing the green eyed monster at work?
On the post: Bill Introduced To Pressure Countries That Seek To Break The Internet
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: call it a day
Does all this about copyrights and TAMs and angry dude trollers mean that people with photographic memories are, by their definition, guilty of piracy and therefore criminals?
If you get to be one with a supercoying machine in your pocket surely it must apply if it's a gelatenous substance located between your ears that you were born with?!
Wonder what the MPAA, RIAA, TAM etc think of that? ;-)
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
On the post: IEEE Celebrates Bilski Ruling With Misleading Press Release
Re: Re: An Assignment For Angry Dude.
What you've described is hardware. All completely useless and rather pointless bits of sand until SOFTWARE (aka algorithms) are run through it.
Your equivalence no more makes hardware the equivalent of software as it does make electricity the equivalent of a wall switch and a light simply because you complete the connection in the switch.
Unless, of course, you want to say electricity is the equivalent of the hardware is runs on.
On the post: Dutch Court Questioning Why Police Outsourced File Sharing Evidence Collection To Industry Group
Re: Re:
Of course, if you're government and private industry the citizenry doesn't exist. We're reduced to interest groups, stakeholders and dangerous extremists when we do things like demand our rights or ask for thinks like coherent and unspun explanations.
Oh to hell with it. Citizens are dangerous extremists. Every single one of them (us)!
On the post: Newspaper Publishes Totally Made Up List Of 'Disorders' Associated With Text Messaging
You gotta be kidding!
NOW it makes sense!
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: call it a day
You'd have us believe you follow patent and copyright issues like a hawk and haven't heard of Groklaw, PJ (aka Pamela Jones if you must know) and the SCO vs damned near everyone cases?
And sometimes dipshites who haven't a clue what software is will say software isn't math.
On the post: Best Buy Firing Employee Because He Makes A Funny Video That Doesn't Even Mention Best Buy
Queue Striesand Effect
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
And very much on the mark.
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re:
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
Still a process doesn't need to be a mathematical expression. It may be but it doesn't need to be.
Software at machine code level IS a mathematical expression. Otherwise it won't work.
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: call it a day
Or any of the people Mike and PJ cite know noting at all?
Hmmmmmmm
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100629014657710
Sheesh!
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Re: Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
On the post: Reading The Bilski Tea Leaves For What The Supreme Court Thinks Of Software Patents
Groklaw concurs and goes a bit further
She focuses more on Justice Stevens than on Justice Scalia but the trail leads to a the same conclusion.
One of the arguments against software patents that PJ has used over the years is that, at the end of the day, all software boils down to Please show me something patentable in software that is not an algorithm. I mean "show me" literally. Show me in the software code something patentable that is not an algorithm, since algorithms are not patentable subject matter. And that's her challenge to the TAMs of the world, who is presumably a TAPJ(?) though that doesn't roll off the tongue quite so nicely, one which, like most others, he hasn't answered yet.
On the post: Broadband Is Now A Legal Right In Finland
Re: Hi TAM, Just What Does This Have To Do With The Topic?
Next >>