software <> inventions

That's what opensource people say. I'm just curious about what they have to say about R&D of algorithms. How can a company who specializes in say creating efficient algorithms for physical and mathematical modelling still secure a profit while still making it's finds available to everyone? In such a senior I don't see how software <> invention.

Just reflecting on the opensource model....

I'm not sure but this might be an exception to the rule.

The main problem with software patents is that they are expensive leaving small software houses out of the competition.

It's a problem of philosophy. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an invention, there are only discoveries. I think the patent system is archaic and should be abolished and replaced with something that is more pragmatic. Something that still rewards people for making discoveries (perhaps in the form of prize money that is funded by corporations contributing to a global pool), but doesn't sequester everything behind pay walls and ridiculous licensing fees.

<> /= !=

The key is usability that separates profitable programs.

"the cost of knowledge" i.e. the ARTIFICIAL amount of money people say knowledge costs, is the greatest barrier to people/programs getting smart.

More on topic, efficient algorithms have basically always been around, and occasionally there'll be a research paper that may elaborate or put into a more practical form a certain theory. (for example, many lighting and other effects in Sauerbraten are literally implemented right from the elaborations in research papers, and are mentioned in the code/readme as such)

Back to my first statement, anyone can implement say, triangles, lighting effects, AI, etc, but it doesn't matter if the game/program is shit. It happens far too often a company will try to "develop for gamers" by reinventing the wheel using millions of dollars, and then everyone blames them for the shitty game. It's a bad reaction on both sides, and blame is in the wrong places, yes the company messed up, because they spent too much on development over things like story and gameplay, but the people are also to blame as like 75% of "gamers" care more about pretty graphics and fake depth than they care about gameplay/challenge/real depth.

It's not just the open source people who despise software patents. As >>2 points out, the current patent situation favors people with large quantities of them, and the broad scope and/or frivolous nature of many patents makes it impossible to write software without infringing someone's patent. Hell, I'm sure I've seen a doubly linked list patent from the 2000s.

How can a company who specializes in say creating efficient algorithms for physical and mathematical modelling still secure a profit while still making it's finds available to everyone?
By making a product that uses those algorithms, most companies do more than just R&D.

I just researched the way Physician deal with a similar scenario, i.e when they discover/invent a new treatment; it turns out they use patents for their intellectual property too.

With such a case I'm torn in half. Half of me says it's right for one to benefit of his own work since we live in a capitalist country while the other half says it's wrong to prohibit somebody from "reinventing the wheel" and use it, instead of being forced to pay for a license.

Who gives a shit, it's not like the law is ever going to change for the better

>>8
Not with that kind of attitude it won't.

>>8

The probability of a change in law: (amount of people with a similar frame of mind as yours)/(population count).

What's even more infuriate about software patents is that the inventor of said software will probably not have enough to pay for a patent. The company will therefore patent the intellectual property herself and the inventor will have little if any compensation whatsoever while the company may as well be making millions.

>>10
U MENA (number of people with the power/government/will/anus that allows them to influence the law)/(population count).

>>11
* (number of people with the power/government/will/anus that allows them to influence the law)/(politician count)

>>12
* ((number of politicians with the power/government/will/anus that allows them to influence the law)-(number of people with the power/government/will/anus that allows them to influence the law, but don't want it to change))/(pelican count)

>>13
(JEWS)/(politician count)

>>14
1

int politicians = 90;
politicians <<= 8;
int pelicans = 21;
pelicans ^= (politicians >> 3);

if (pelicans % politicians == 0)
    printf("%d", pelicans | politicians);

>>16
Ｉ　ｄｏｎ＇ｔ　ｇｅｔ　ｉｔ　：（