71–80 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top (when I wrote this) comment on this thread is, on close read, virtually content free.
Right, pointing out that conflict of interest means that software patent law is here to stay is content-free.
"... and that's the reason you have to have a patent lawyer because the language makes no sense. In US it’s technically English but it’s not really English. It’s like using English words but there are different meanings to them. There is a whole different set of rules about what things mean when they do a patent application." Well guess what - that is not unusual when everyday words migrate into a technical area and…
But you're right, patents are for lawyers, not software practitioners. We should expect them to use a technical language that they, not we, understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many patent lawyers are there in Congress? I'd be surprised if it's more than one or two.
> How many patent lawyers are there in Congress? How did you get "patent lawyers" from my statement of "lawyers"? It doesn't take much to recognize that folks in the legal profession are going to be pro-legal structure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rare that I've seen the Java VM described as horrible. In fact, it seems to be quite highly respected and seems to be working out well for Scala and Clojure. Obviously, there's also Twitter who partially moved to the VM from Rails. Would you care to elaborate? Has Linus talked about the VM before?
The Java VM is quite bad. There just isn't an alternative that meets these criteria: 1. cross platform (windows, mac, linux, mobile devices, embedded) 2. kinda fast 3. reasonably mature 4. bunch of libraries If you want to create a new programming language today Java is the only viable platform. .NET and Mono isn't quite mature enough (and it's very similar to Java anyway). If you bootstrap from C it'll be fast and p…
My understanding is that it is state-of-the-art, and includes many innovations (unlike Java itself). Of course, state of the art does not mean perfect. There's still room to improve, which the JVM, CLR or some other VM might manage. But it seems over-the-top to bash the best in the world. It's like saying that, as a sprinter, Usain Bolt is quite bad.
The real tiger is never a match for a paper one, unless actual use is wanted. - Brooks
> 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.
It's not clear from the actual quote that he thinks both software and process patents "don't make sense" as the title states (or just process patents). He probably does, but it's not clear from this interview.
I think he's very insightful about patent and copyright litigation being especially nasty from a legal perspective, because it's winner take all with no middle ground.
Oh, and he think Java and the JVM are "horrible". So consider this polemic approach when assessing his patent views.
Linus: "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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!" Why? He just bashes Java using strong language and not providing any arguments. This could get my respect if Java were some kind of sacred cow that nobody dares criticize. This is not the case AFAIK.
I accept that this quote doesn't give his reasons. However, I have to agree with him. My reasons are that Java is slow and bloated.
"... and that's the reason you have to have a patent lawyer because the language makes no sense. In US it’s technically English but it’s not really English. It’s like using English words but there are different meanings to them. There is a whole different set of rules about what things mean when they do a patent application." Well guess what - that is not unusual when everyday words migrate into a technical area and…
Yes, it's naive. They're naively believing the legal fiction that patents are supposedly required to enable a reasonably skilled practitioner in the field of the patent to be able to reduce the invention to practice in a straightforward way from reading the patent. But you're right, patents are for lawyers, not software practitioners. We should expect them to use a technical language that they, not we, understand.
The section which Linus is almost certainly referring to is the claims. These are indeed expressed in a technical vocabulary which is tricky for a lay person to penetrate.
But the section which is supposed to enable a person ordinarily skilled in the art to be able to make the invention is not written in such vocabulary. On the contrary, it typically written in language which is perfectly comprehensible. The difficulty if any is in having the patience to read a tediously long description with endless references to diagrams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!" Why? He just bashes Java using strong language and not providing any arguments. This could get my respect if Java were some kind of sacred cow that nobody dares criticize. This is not the case AFAIK.
I accept that this quote doesn't give his reasons. However, I have to agree with him. My reasons are that Java is slow and bloated.