In an ideal world, big companies would look one another sheepishly, join forces and just bully their way through lobbying to get rid of software patents.
>>2
Yes, but their software patent counsellors would strongly advise against that (since their payrolls would be at stake).
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:26
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:31
I hope Google fights this. This patent is just retarded. TAOCP is fucking prior art for this bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:31
>>10
Remember I mentioned this for an 'ideal' (for a given value of ideal) world.
Please also note that if the law (explicitly or implicitly) require me to hire rat exterminators, and that I finally get the law to explicitly not mandate rat exterminators, then I can fire all of them no matter what they've been advising all this time.
Big companies have legal counsel other than patent lawyers. Those can advice on the legal matter of outlawing software patents. Their payrolls are not at stake. If there is an opportunity window to get rid of software patents a simple cost-benefit analysis can tell you if it's worth it to go ahead and bankroll lobbyists and lawyers to then fire the software patent lawyers, and those would have little say in the matter.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:35
I'm going to patent doubly-linked lists and sue all of you!
C++0x standard library's unordered_map and unordered_set use chaining. Is this the end of C++?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:41
>>13
In the real world, the loudest one wins. Lawyers usually have big mouths and a way with people. Sure, any accountant can come up with a cost-benefit analysis for software patents that concludes that software patents are a waste of time and money. The question is whether he gets to speak in front of the shareholders, or the lawyer does.
Speaking of which, have any of these analyses been published (so that I can quote them in the future)?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:51
>>16
I mentioned an analysis of the benefits of software patents (right now) AS COMPARED TO the cost of getting rid of software patents (with, say, lobbying). That would be quite different than an analysis of the cost and benefits of software patents on their own (what do we gain from our patents, what do we lose from our legal costs + the patents of other). Since getting rid of software patents isn't on the horizon for now, there's not a need for an analysis (and I wouldn't take one seriously if I knew of one).
Here's my very own analysis for you:
(little software patents benefits - little software patents costs) / HUGE LOBBYING COSTS WITH NO GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS = not worth it
I can't wait until we get scalable nuclear fusion energy production technology working. It will be the great enabler of the post-scarcity, libertarian socialist utopia and we will finally have a populace educated enough to abandon authoritarian measures such as patents.
>>17 Since getting rid of software patents isn't on the horizon for now That's subjective. And it's for now.
Buying politicians doesn't cost that much. Hell, with 5M USD, you could probably push the change in, say, the EU legislation, if you use the money wisely and not just throw it around. Of course, it'll take a lot more money and effort to do it in the US as well. But hey, once you're done, you won't have to worry about software patents ever. A one-time cost always outweighs a perpetual periodic (and possibly varying) cost.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 13:02
>>19
What if another company lays down double the amount but in the other direction? There's a need for consensus between the big companies. And right now patents are also used strategically not to bring revenue in, but to slow down development/access to market. See Oracle suing Google about the Android JVM.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 13:03
In college I thought I invented combining hash tables with link lists. I got super excited and showed my professor. He laughed and said its a common practice. Upon exiting his office I had a sudden wave of paranoia that he might have just lied to me to steal my genius idea. Then I went home and Google put me in my place.
>>21
All of the low-lying fruit has already been taken. To innovate now, you must find ways to apply Jewish mathematics to model external phenomenon as novel internal computational states that can be utilized to perform meaningful work.
>>54
This may surprise you, but I patented the idea of patenting patents and the idea of patenting of patenting patents before >>52-53 patented those ideas, so you, by patenting the patent of the idea of patenting pantents of the idea of patenting patents, have infringed my patent of the idea of patenting patents and the patent of the idea of patenting patents of the idea of patenting patents.
>>65
Too bad programmers are too autistic as fuck to talk in front of any court. Enjoy getting sued.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 22:32
>>65 Another way to put it is that the law means what judges decide it to mean, not what it says, and judges are humans, not machines. They judge laws by what they believe their intent to be, and by how they are phrased, in some mixed proportion that varies according to the judge. Trying to argue entirely based on a mechanical interpretation of law is autistic, in the worst way - i.e. stupid in an almost medical fashion.
fuck you fellow /prog/rider faggot
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 23:11
>>65 Another way to put it is that the law means what judges decide it to mean, not what it says, and judges are humans, not machines. They judge laws by what they believe their intent to be, and by how they are phrased, in some mixed proportion that varies according to the judge.
This is more of a /newpol/ issue, I think, but then what's the point of written law if any written word means nothing until you apply interpretation?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 23:34
>>68
The point is that the people will fall for it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 23:44
>>68
This is not a fault of the law, but of the natural language. If you even assume that for each law it is possible to write an equivalent version that can literally be understood by everybody, how much resources would that take? How hard would it be to introduce future legislation? Then, for each mistake the legislator makes, we end up with a loophole that takes yet again more resources to fix with no guarantee of not introducing new faults.
Writing unambiguous language:
- takes much more resources than plain language
- has no guarantee of success
To avoid all this and still have a workable system the current alternative is to have the legislator and the judiciary as separate powers. Those that make the laws can't twist them in their favor (for instance), and vice versa.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 0:32
>>70
Or perhaps someone can create a language that has only one interpretation, and persuade lawmakers to adopt it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 0:49
>>71
Not just the lawmakers, but everyone: how else would we know what is illegal and what isn't? Making a natural language version available for everyone would still require interpretation(s) and defeat the purpose of a new language altogether.
Still, there is a relation between the expressiveness of a language and the ease of learning and using it. Until someone comes along and turns language theory upside down, I'll assume that you will always *have to* trade one for the other. Natural language feels very well placed along this spectrum; a lot of expressive power, very learnable and usable.
I'd like to hear more from the conlang community though. No idea how hard it is to think in Lojban; and I still shudder when I remember my predicate logic classes
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 1:22
HOW ABOUT I JUST DO WHAT I WANT AND NOT FUCKING SHOW UP TO COURT.
>>65
Oy vey! Using our new ``quantum physics software'' that can describe any physical object with pure mathematics we make all patents useless! Now we will use them to improve our Intel CPUs, driving the goyish CPU companies to their graves! ``Loongson'' has no NSA or Mossad backdoors! The very thought sends shivers down my spine!
Name:
Anonymous2013-12-31 2:17
>> 65
Idiot thinking Haskell is mathematics.
Name:
Anonymous2013-12-31 3:10
Use FreeBSD if you want to avoid a GNUOSERS trying to rape you or cancer telling you to install Arch
Name:
Anonymous2013-12-31 9:40
I'm glad Americans suck dick sometimes too. Being able to sue millions of bucks off of some Corporation of Good is... well, good. Can I sue Google from abroad using American laws?
Name:
Anonymous2013-12-31 9:48
Let's sue Microsoft and Apple to make them open up source code for all their software to an independent scrutiny. Who knows how many patents they've infringed!!!
Haskell is a programming language. It is not at all equivalent to typed lambda calculus.
That's like saying a chair is equivalent to an elephant.
There used to be a similar rumor about "Lisp" (where Lisp means any number of languages, most of which are not Lisp) being equivalent to (regular) lambda calculus.
I cannot comprehend what kind of confusion causes this sort of thinking.