 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
effect on anything?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
>
> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
> effect on anything?
Well, except that he's wrong.
Non-mathematical algorithm: steps to process raw corn, blocks of cheese, and
blocks of plastic into little bags of cheetos.
Non-mathematical algorithm: Use discrete log to negotiate a shared key for
public key encryption. Discrete log is a mathematical algorithm. DH key
exchange is not.
In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
cannot be patented.
> as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information
Of course they are. Numbers have no units. Measure me out three of milk.
> If software code is "a series of instructions" then it's like a manual
No, it's like an industrial process, which is patentable. Why should an
industrial process written down in a book be patentable but an industrial
process written down in a machine-readable file not? Indeed, that's how
software patents are written. You don't patent the code. You patent machines
running the code. Trying to distinguish this from patenting the instructions
for using other technology is going to be *very* difficult.
Mind, I'm not saying we should have software patents. I'm just saying that
the argument "all software is mathematical and hence should not be subject
to patent" is an invalid argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 21:46, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
>
> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
> effect on anything?
>
Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to make
a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Well, except that he's wrong.
Heh. Few people would have the nerve to suggest such a thing. ;-)
> > as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise
> information
>
> Of course they are. Numbers have no units. Measure me out three of milk.
Units can be encoded as numbers. Well *everything* can be encoded as
numbers. And numbers, of course, can be encoded as things.
> > If software code is "a series of instructions" then it's like a manual
>
> No, it's like an industrial process, which is patentable. Why should an
> industrial process written down in a book be patentable but an
> industrial process written down in a machine-readable file not? Indeed,
> that's how software patents are written. You don't patent the code. You
> patent machines running the code.
Not last time I checked. E.g., the patent on LZW, the patent on using
XOR drawing, the patent on clicking a button to order stuff off the
Internet, etc.
If you have a machine that does something, which somewhere involves a
computer, sure, that should be patentable. But I don't think you should
be able to patent the fact that a if you multiply two numbers together
and then multiply the product by the multiplicative inverse of the
second number in some finite field it yields the first number should be
patentable. That's more or less the definition of what multiplication
and multiplicative inverses *are*!
> Mind, I'm not saying we should have software patents. I'm just saying
> that the argument "all software is mathematical and hence should not be
> subject to patent" is an invalid argument.
I'm just upset that I could sit at my desk, make up some computer
program, and then get sued millions because somebody I've never heard of
already thought of it.
But hey, I guess that's no different than some guy in his guarage making
a new extra-soft kind of foam and then getting sued because some
petrochemical giant somewhere already makes something similar...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
>> effect on anything?
>>
> Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to make
> a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys always
lose.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 22:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
>>> effect on anything?
>>>
>> Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to
>> make a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
>
> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys always
> lose.
>
I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
good guy and a loser.
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
> cannot be patented.
You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
>> always lose.
>>
> I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
> good guy and a loser.
Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
Mostly.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 22:40, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
>>> always lose.
>>>
>> I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
>> good guy and a loser.
>
> Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
> any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
> Mostly.)
>
We have this teeny weeny problem of defining who the 'good guys' are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a3fec45$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
> >> always lose.
> > I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
> > good guy and a loser.
> Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
> any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
> Mostly.)
There are no good guys. There are winners and there are losers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
