11–20 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But software patents are bad so this one guy deserves all the blame! Not his bosses who pressured him to do it, not the system that set up a framework for claiming ownership of ideas... no, this is all his fault, and it's worse than murder! Death penalty!!!
Stab him with parenthesis! Smash his fingers in a Turing machine!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This waste of carbon isn't worthy of scrubbing Knuth's toilet, and I'm all for drumming him out of tech for life. But our neglect of security in prisons isn't funny.
But software patents are bad so this one guy deserves all the blame! Not his bosses who pressured him to do it, not the system that set up a framework for claiming ownership of ideas... no, this is all his fault, and it's worse than murder! Death penalty!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
The problem is that it was worth Tandberg's effort to put together and submit this fraudulent patent application. Enough applications like this get granted, and later go unchallenged or get upheld, that Tandberg had a reasonable expectation that they would get a patent to extort money out of somebody or scare competitors out of competing with them. Software patents need to be harder to get, easier to overturn, and th…
Another prove that software patents should be abolished.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
The existence of the patent system encourages people to commit such "intellectual dishonesty" by providing a monopolistic and monetary incentive for doing it. There's a difference between a system that is abused, and a system that's fundamentally asking for such abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it was worth Tandberg's effort to put together and submit this fraudulent patent application. Enough applications like this get granted, and later go unchallenged or get upheld, that Tandberg had a reasonable expectation that they would get a patent to extort money out of somebody or scare competitors out of competing with them. Software patents need to be harder to get, easier to overturn, and th…
We need USPTO to somehow bear consequences for the harm they're doing to the industry. Reviewed applications are counted towards the "production" of an examiner but approvals later overturned by a court are not counted against them. As long as they only have incentive to rubber-stamp basically anything or risk dismissal, that's what they'll do.
That is freaking bizarre, curious about the follow up on this. I think someone is about to loos his job
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
Another prove that software patents should be abolished.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
When we have sci-fi nanoreplicators that can copy luxury (flying) cars, food, etc., all scarcity will be artificial.
Alternatively, when we have very convincing VR, everyone will be able to experience what he or she wants to as much as he or she wants to. There won't be anything to trade because you can't give someone something they can't already get. Strong general AI will fill in for everything.
Our puny mammalian brains with their limited sensory inputs will be entertained by not-very-advanced technology that eventually becomes effectively free. It doesn't even take that much fidelity to fool us -- think of how unconvincing dreams are after you wake up. There's seemingly some credulity switch that gets flipped which makes us believe something to be reality without really questioning it. Switch that on while awake and World of Warcraft is probably more than good enough.
Incidentally, I noticed that asking yourself the question, "how did I get here?" ala Inception is really annoying when you're awake. It's difficult to question your reality when you subjectively feel it to be true.
My awake existence is mostly in one place staring at a monitor. I almost never do that when I dream, I'm "physically" doing something completely unrelated.