I am glad I am not alone in thinking I don't want to deal with java
Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
31–40 of 92 posts
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#32OT:mukt is a hindi word which means free.
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#33> I think patents probably work better in certain areas than they do in ours. Software patents? No. Process patents? No. They just don't make sense. Only if you ignore the fact that congress is composed of lawyers, who have a large self-interest in preserving the current Byzantine system.
How many patent lawyers are there in Congress? I'd be surprised if it's more than one or two.
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#34Well I didn't know that US patent cases can be presented to a jury. I don't envy them on that considering the language these things are written in. I wonder how many hours are spent 'training' the jury in the legalese required to understand the case? And this would have to be done for each and every case that has a jury!
It's the judge's responsibility to explain the legal basis to the jury in the form of jury instructions. These will usually be created in consultation with the lawyers for both sides. Trial by jury is the reason why East Texas is the court of choice for patent claims. For some reason jury verdicts there seem to be biased towards the patent holder. I should also note that being a juror in a federal case sucks. The fir…
> Trial by jury is the reason why East Texas is the court of choice for patent claims.
Not true. The local rules in the Eastern District are seen as favorable to patent plaintiffs. It's (basically) nothing to do with the jury pool out there.
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#35Well I didn't know that US patent cases can be presented to a jury. I don't envy them on that considering the language these things are written in. I wonder how many hours are spent 'training' the jury in the legalese required to understand the case? And this would have to be done for each and every case that has a jury!
It's the judge's responsibility to explain the legal basis to the jury in the form of jury instructions. These will usually be created in consultation with the lawyers for both sides. Trial by jury is the reason why East Texas is the court of choice for patent claims. For some reason jury verdicts there seem to be biased towards the patent holder. I should also note that being a juror in a federal case sucks. The fir…
> For some reason jury verdicts there seem to be biased towards the patent holder.
The jury is instructed to assume the patent is valid until they are convinced it is not.
If the patent holder's lawyer can confuse the jury, the patent will be upheld. It's pretty easy for a lawyer to do that.
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#36Totally agreed. Compete on products or results, not on legal process
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#37A programmers opinion of Java goes a long way in showing what kind of a programmer he/she really is!
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#38What website is that? Did anyone else go to its homepage ( http://www.muktware.com/ ) and notice an unhealthy obsession with Linus Torvalds and exclusive interviews?
I think they are just parts of the same (long) interview.
No there's a definite creep factor going on with this site. The article page has his image as the background of the website and in the logo...::shudder::
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#39Linus: "I don't actually know the details. I mean Java I really don't care about. What a horrible language. What a horrible VM. So, I am like whatever, you are barking about all this crap, go away. I don't care." My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!
My respect for him remains the same because when you multiply infinity by any number what you get is still infinity!
Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patents are about ideas and inventions which must be "novel", "useful" and "non-obvious". A smart mix of things that already exist would not be patentable unless it is "inventive", "novel", useful" and "non-obvious". If it is all of these, it should be patentable whether it is software or hardware. (Note however that laws of physics, mathematical formulas, etc. are not patentable.) What's broken is not the concept of…
It would seem that one of the main arguments against software patents that is thrown around is that "software is mathematics". As a software engineer currently knee deep in learning Haskell, I believe that this argument carries plenty of weight. However, when judging software patents, we shouldn't overlook the reason for which patents themselves were originally invented. I think the best description of a patent that…
It is a bad idea (since that isn't how it works in practice), but not a bad intention.