On 17-5-2010 22:19, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 5/16/2010 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
>>

Typical example of WIME (Wikipedia Is Your Enemy). You are not supposed 
to make claims that are factually wrong, not even jokingly, not even if 
everybody understands what you mean :(

> Let me rephrase... If they had the kind of idiot patents we now see in 
> Software, where you can make it stupidly vague, describe a set of 
> instructions, rather than a physical thing, then sue everyone that even 
> *sort of* does the same thing...
> 
> Good example, from the video. You have two data sets. Say X1, X2, X3. 
> One is liking pets, second is "affectionate", third is.. I don't know, 
> favorite color = red. You also also have the same data from someone 
> else, Y1, Y2, Y3. You then so a fairly uncomplicated comparison on them. 
> Nope, no patent here. Now.. ***Name*** the variables, say, Zip, Zop, and 
> Zap. Put out a patent that says, "Comparing Zip, Zop and Zap to find 
> "compatibility" between individuals with those traits, and suddenly it 
> **is** patentable. You named them after all, which, according to the 
> argument that led to most of this BS, makes the process "unique", not 
> just basic fracking boolean math on a matrix of values.
> 
> This is how damn stupid things are right now. And, if you make it vague 
> enough, you get some damn silly lawsuits, and people actually *winning*, 
> or getting settlements, on the basis of such nonsense. You can't produce 
> an inexpensive alternative to product X, if simply marketing it means 
> you have to spent a million dollars to pay off all the people that show 
> up to say, "Heh! We think that falls under out patents!"
> 
> Its irrelevant that, at one time, patents actually worked. Since they 
> didn't allow the kinds of patents, until ****very recently****, that we 
> see in software.
>

Post a reply to this message