"How to Save the Republican Party"

[Lemur]

gaelic cowboy, do you believe that naturally occurring genomes should have patent protection? Algorithms? Mathematical equations?

Why do you believe copyright is insufficient?

[drone]

but you wouldn't be able to rely on copyright to protect your source code though Drone cos in this non-patent scenario it's just math and that's in the public domain.

Source code is like a book. You can tell a basic story many ways, but the character names and places are unique. Copyrighted source code means no one can take my files, compile them, and sell the executable. But they can write their own code that does the same thing.

[gaelic cowboy]

gaelic cowboy, do you believe that naturally occurring genomes should have patent protection? Algorithms? Mathematical equations?

algorithims no but if there used in software that I wrote developed and therefore created a function that was never there to start with then yes.

genomes obviously not but if i figure a way to use genomes for something then yes

Why do you believe copyright is insufficient?

Drone reckons the software is just maths therefore I can claim the maths would lead me to the same place, essentially it would be impossible to prove you hadnt copied it.

After all code is really binary numbers which is public domain

[Tellos Athenaios]

Software patents were invented to make the likes of IBM a lot of money. Rent-seeking is all they are good for (licensing), hence the niche occupied by the patent troll. Particularly since the lifetime or validity of a patent bear no relationship to actual product or maturity in the market.

That's part one of the problem. Part two is the fact that most of these software inventions have prior art writ large upon them, plain to see for anyone in the trade*. Unfortunately patent offices don't really do this whole "checking the application" thing. So there's an inordinate amount of dross, obvious, or prior art patented, whatever the intentions of the law supposedly were.

Part three is that when it comes to genuine inventions in the art of software, patents don't fit at all. Patents are supposed to protect specific inventions brought to market, not vague descriptions or generic concepts. However, most of the insights in software fall into the "generically reusable concept" category (either as part of computer science or as part of engineering "best-practices"), not in a specific design. Specific designs tend to wind up being algorithms which are not supposed to be patentable in the first place.

Part four is that everyone knows it so it's a matter of war-gaming the system so you can be bigger and badder than your nearest competitors and therefore frighten them off. MAD is not a very healthy paradigm. It's a culture in which people play games like "who can get the whackiest patent past the USPTO?".
[*] And that goes for a lot of patents where "hardware + software" is involved as well. Consider the 2000's era patents on icons on a cell phone, which are distinctly wrong when you recall that your 90's era brick with antenna had those as well, nevermind the questionable novelty of pictograms on a screen at the time. (Pictograms on a screen being something out of the lab from the 50's/60's.)

http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis...ent_troll.html

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Tellos Athenaios pretty much everything you wrote can be solved without removing patents from any industry.




I can understand the arguements against patents, however seeing as a lot of the economy is tied up in them we better be certain it's a good idea.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@ Tellos Athenaios pretty much everything you wrote can be solved without removing patents from any industry.

Solved, how? Will the USPTO, or for that matter any patent office, suddenly do their job properly when it comes to software patents? Will patent lifetime be reduced to something suitable when compared to how many iterations of the invention will or could occur in that time? Will patent applications get processed swiftly so they may be granted or rejected before the subject is outdated or common knowledge?

Anyway there's of course a small problem with "pure software patents" in that pure software is merely algorithms and therefore math, as illustrated: http://paulspontifications.blogspot....hematical.html

[gaelic cowboy]

Solved, how? Will the USPTO, or for that matter any patent office, suddenly do their job properly when it comes to software patents? Will patent lifetime be reduced to something suitable when compared to how many iterations of the invention will or could occur in that time? Will patent applications get processed swiftly so they may be granted or rejected before the subject is outdated or common knowledge?

Anyway there's of course a small problem with "pure software patents" in that pure software is merely algorithms and therefore math, as illustrated: http://paulspontifications.blogspot....hematical.html

So we scrap em because they cannot do there job in the patent office.

if certain patents like this can be proved to be illegal than they should indeed be scrapped. I suspect a lawyer will demolish such an arguement easily though, surely they could claim everything is maths and therefore all patents must go as maths is universal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

IP reform is def somewhere I would like to see the GOP focus. I would like to see them focus on a number of personal liberty issues in a new way.

Busting up monopolies and trusts is not anathema to free-market economics. A system that is capable of disrupting trade is a corruption, like a blood clot. Added to this, the system would be outside of the power of citizens. I'm all for laws that lower taxes, reduce loopholes and eliminate any government incentives for monopolization of industry.

[HopAlongBunny]

The problem with that is the "market" is itself an incentive to seek, obtain and defend monopoly power. Without government regulation and intervention, the "market" actually strives to stifle competition.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem with that is the "market" is itself an incentive to seek, obtain and defend monopoly power. Without government regulation and intervention, the "market" actually strives to stifle competition.

I agree, as I had stated before. People are also driven to rob and kill and enslave others. They need regulation to keep them from doing this to one another. Government has a role and that is to maximally protect the rights of individuals from dissolution by others (including government). I believe that the governments role beyond this should be localized to the greatest extent possible.

[Strike For The South]

I agree, as I had stated before. People are also driven to rob and kill and enslave others. They need regulation to keep them from doing this to one another.

Not true, most people are content to leave well enough alone.

Government has a role and that is to maximally protect the rights of individuals from dissolution by others (including government). I believe that the governments role beyond this should be localized to the greatest extent possible.

This statement is intentionally vague and means nothing. I have individual right to healthcare. I have an individual right to have my butthole played with during sex. The rub is hammering out where we draw the line, can we at least agree on that?

Localized control becomes more and more useless as the world gets smaller and smaller.

Also, I need odds for my "Vicar of Rome" betting pool, do you have any?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not true, most people are content to leave well enough alone.

Until they are not. My point is that everyone, at some point, feels the desire to deprive others of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It is as natural as wanting to leave others alone and be left alone the rest of the time.

[HopAlongBunny]

Until they are not. My point is that everyone, at some point, feels the desire to deprive others of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

You can add to that list: Where money is involved. Unfortunately, that extends the need for gov't oversight to almost all social interactions, and almost by definition market interactions. Which raises the question of "who will watch the watchers".