131–140 of 205 posts
Without reading the patent it sounds a lot like interval arithmetic [1] which sounds like a really good idea at first but is not without its own problems. For example the inverse 1/x for an interval x like [-1,+1] containing 0 consists of two intervals (-∞,-1] and [+1;+∞). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_arithmetic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about them? You're free to discover new things, and not patent them, instead publishing them. If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.
> If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property. Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The p…
Your correlation doesn't hold up because tax loopholes are not formally allowed. You call that out in your previous sentence by scare-quoting "allow". The inventor uses a formal system (patents). The company uses an informal system (tax loopholes). In the case of a formal system, you do not attack the inventor because he is just using the proper channel. In the case of an informal system, you do attack the company because the company is unethically taking advantage of a channel that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual advice w.r.t. patents is to not read them. This may seem odd, but it can be the difference between knowing and unknowing infringement. Knowing infringement results in triple damages. IANAL — just repeating consistent advice I have received
Unless you are planning to infringe (which is knowing in itself), this is very bizarre advice. Reading a patent is more likely to make you not infringe upon it than to make you knowingly infringe upon it.
For people who are writing novel software it can be better to always avoid reading patents, that way they can honestly state they haven't read a specific patent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's possible to represent 1/3 perfectly accurately, but what about all the numbers that it's theoretically impossible to compute? (Almost all real numbers have this property)
> Almost all real numbers have this property > Almost all I love this comment because it brings back memories of school. In a layman's terms, I think almost all in this case means all but a finite amount can we say almost all real numbers are irrational? 1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 ... 2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 ... 3 ... so clearly we can count all the rational numbers but how many irrational numbers are there? are there (many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's possible to represent 1/3 perfectly accurately, but what about all the numbers that it's theoretically impossible to compute? (Almost all real numbers have this property)
> Almost all real numbers have this property > Almost all I love this comment because it brings back memories of school. In a layman's terms, I think almost all in this case means all but a finite amount can we say almost all real numbers are irrational? 1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 ... 2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 ... 3 ... so clearly we can count all the rational numbers but how many irrational numbers are there? are there (many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's possible to represent 1/3 perfectly accurately, but what about all the numbers that it's theoretically impossible to compute? (Almost all real numbers have this property)
> Almost all real numbers have this property > Almost all I love this comment because it brings back memories of school. In a layman's terms, I think almost all in this case means all but a finite amount can we say almost all real numbers are irrational? 1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 ... 2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 ... 3 ... so clearly we can count all the rational numbers but how many irrational numbers are there? are there (many…
http://austinrochford.com/posts/2013-12-31-almost-no-rationa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Under a different system that doesn't incentivize holding back global progress for small amounts of individual enrichment. Patents don't hold back global progress any more than capitalism keeps people in poverty. If we went back a few hundred years and impose alternatives, would we be better off today? I doubt it. The whole point of the patent system is to foster innovation, and free exchange of ideas. Without the…
> The problem with the patent system is not the concept of patents, but what they've been allowed to apply to and how long the terms have increased. Patents aren't copyrights. The term for patents is only about 20 years.
In any case, I don't think we should immediately vilify someone for using the patent system (and using it as originally intended, IMO), just because we are unhappy with the way it's been abused recently, as I think it has provided us great benefit over it's existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual advice w.r.t. patents is to not read them. This may seem odd, but it can be the difference between knowing and unknowing infringement. Knowing infringement results in triple damages. IANAL — just repeating consistent advice I have received
Unless you are planning to infringe (which is knowing in itself), this is very bizarre advice. Reading a patent is more likely to make you not infringe upon it than to make you knowingly infringe upon it.
Perverse incentives indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Almost all real numbers have this property > Almost all I love this comment because it brings back memories of school. In a layman's terms, I think almost all in this case means all but a finite amount can we say almost all real numbers are irrational? 1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 ... 2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 ... 3 ... so clearly we can count all the rational numbers but how many irrational numbers are there? are there (many…
Well, if I remember correctly, a product of an irrational and a rational is still irrational, right? If so, here's a simple argument: If you have N rational numbers and I have K irrationals to start with, I can produce roughly N*K additional irrationals. Since we know at least two irrationals (pi and e) we can make at least twice as many irrationals as rationals.
0 1
1 3
2 5
:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the downside, but how else would he ever get paid for this?
They could have used trade secrets. Konrad Zuse tells the story that back then, optical equipment manufacturers used to contract him for computations. Instead of rooms full of mechanical calculators operated by humans (the original "computers") they would supply his company with data and algorithms and he would reply back with results. Apparently, there were design reasons why for electronic calculations a different…
Offering an alternative to that is why the patent system was created. The idea is you publish and in return get a monopoly for a short period of time. Of course the system is abused (all systems are abused), but the reasons for its creation were actually quite "liberal."