Red Hat Files Amicus Brief In Bilski Patent Case 219
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Red Hat has filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court in regards to the In Re Bilski case, which has become incredibly important due to the possibility that it could redefine the scope of patentable subject matter in a way that affects software patents. In the brief, Red Hat argues that software should not be considered patentable subject matter because it causes economic harm due to patents being granted with vague subject matter, which makes it impossible to say that a given piece of software doesn't arguably infringe upon someone's patent. They also point out Knuth's famous quote that you can't differentiate between 'numeric' and 'non-numeric' algorithms, because numbers are no different from other kinds of precise information." Read below for the submitter's thoughts on an earlier amicus brief filed in the Bilski case by Professor Lee Hollaar.
It's a pity, though, that they don't seem to directly address Professor Lee Hollaar's brief that gave a hand-waving excuse about the Curry-Howard correspondence being merely 'cosmetic' (whatever that means), even though you can turn ZFC into a program (ZFC being the axiomatic framework in which almost all math is done) and you can turn programs into math in order to verify them. Of course, this is the guy who called the successor function 'essentially nonsense', presumably because he doesn't think that mathematicians can differentiate between assignment and equality the way computer scientists can.
I think (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll go buy a copy of Red Hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should try Red Hat. I've tried using Linux in Ubuntu form and eventually gave up because I work for computers all day, when I'm at home I want computers to work for me.
Re: (Score:2)
RHEL is a very different beast to Ubuntu.
Firstly, it is aimed at the Server market unlike the desktop (Ubuntu)
It is aimed at stabilty and longevity.
Therefore even in the latest version (5.4) some of the versions are somewhat behind that used in Ubuntu.
Give it a try but be prepared to encounter some differences over Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Red Hat, but also try Mandriva if that doesn't work out. If you aren't fully satisfied, I'll reinstall Windows for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I want computers to work for me.
Funny, that is one reason I use Linux. Hassle free software installs, secure with little effort, easy to install on desktops (I have had problems with laptop sound and video drivers).
Use Mepis these days, and I have put PCLinuxOS on the shared family desktop my wife and daughter use. I have also installed Linux for other people and have recently got a request (from a kid who likes by daughter's PC) for another install (trying to figure out how to install on a PowerPC based mac laptop with a defective CD dri
Re:I think (Score:4, Informative)
As much as people hate to hear it, the Windows OS is pretty good these days.
Of course, MS as a company sucks ass. If they would stop trying to be the abby sitters for the media companies and pull out DRM, I suspect it would be an awesome OS.
Windows has the most applications. It is not the best by most any other measure. The APIs are horrible, the security architecture is a house of cards, and it's still too easy for a single application to go crazy and freeze the system -- either because your game crashes and the video card can't be reset, or some system resource locks and then the application zombifies and brings everything to its knees in short order, or one of a dozen other failure conditions that are the result of poor programming.
But it's what everybody knows and uses so we'll overlook all of those problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
we can play bluray without DRM. It's called Matroska/H264/Theora.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the impression that the DRM in Blu-Ray's and HD-DVD's is a good thing. It's not. It has royally screwed up the infrastructure of Windows, and made your computer less
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's what made them useless!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about that. I had a couple of Creative sound cards long before Blu-Ray disks came out, and they were pretty useless even way back then
Re:I think (Score:4, Interesting)
Now before you say anything about not being able to do this or that with your Blu-Rays or HD DVDs, you must remember that without the DRM you wouldn't be able to do anything with those formats on your computer at all.
And without the police conducting random searches, beating protesters, and generally treating everyone as if they were already criminal, we wouldn't have the freedom we currently enjoy. Freedom is a gift, given to you by those in control.
Re:I think (Score:4, Informative)
Actually DRM has nothing to do with being able to enjoy blueray.
What's stopping blueray from being DRM free is a patent on blueray that you only get a license to use if you agree to implement DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read that Vista will disable digital sound output under some conditions. It should not be up to MS to decide how sound may be output under any conditions, assuming the hardware allows for it.
Frankly, if MS had told the MPAA to F-off, the MPAA would back down. Like it or not, Windows is the home PC market. If Blu-ray won't play on a Windows machine, it's a dead format.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hooking the same laptop up to a regular (non-digital) monitor later proved it worked fine when not connected to a digital projector.
For this reason alone I won't purchase any more Microsoft products.
And yes, the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...the company who created a video memorial was unable to show it on a digital projector under XP because of DRM.
How do you know it was "because of DRM"? If it actually was caused by DRM (unlikely), then the company who created the memorial had to have put digital restrictions in to the video. The question you should be asking is why they did that?
More likely, the problem you experienced with the video portion showing a black rectangle through the projector is the same problem countless other people have had, which has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM. Google it. There are lots of people solving exactly that problem
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
after the CentOS debacle, pardon my disenthusiasm (Score:2)
I understand that Red Hat was within their rights to protect their trademark, but they could have been much more pleasant about it.
Copyrighted. (Score:3, Funny)
original code, do not steal!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
do_stuffs();
do'h stupid Slashdot and formatting.
Re: (Score:2)
Try the <code> tag. It works ;)
Re: (Score:2)
for(int i = 1; i < y; do_stuffs() && cnt++) { ; }
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing a parenthesis.
for (int cnt = 1; cnt do_stuffs());
Did I infringe on your code, improve it or just open myself open to a lawsuit in a thousand ways?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I am aware of any non-one-letter vowels. Please enlighten me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Æ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only an insensitive clod resorts to that sort of name-calling.
Software patents are teh suck (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that software shouldn't be patentable (either directly or through the various loopholes that applicants use to get around the fact that software, when claimed directly, is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" [uspto.gov]).
But in my opinion, this should be a matter of policy motivated by the fact that the rate of improvements in the software arts is far too fast to permit 20-year terms of patent protection, and such a policy has to come from Congress rather than the courts. Current law seems to support the idea of granting patent rights for programs in the context of a "general purpose computer programmed with software" or a "computer readable storage medium embodying software", and I seriously doubt that SCOTUS is going to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
What I would like to see is a Supreme Court ruling that extended patents to software and business methods worded in such a way as to push Congress to pass a law addressing the issues that lead to patenting software. I don't believe that this would be a good law, but it would be one that could be more easily addressed than the current situation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that patenting of software didn't come from Congress in the first place, it came from the courts.
That isn't completely true. The courts use the law as guidance in determining the scope of patent protection. There is nothing in the laws passed by Congress excluding software patents. In fact, the laws are intentionally vague so as not to accidentally exclude technological innovation from patent protection. So while software patent protections are directly derived from court rulings, those rulings are derived from an interpretation of the laws passed by Congress.
The argument against software patents i
Re: (Score:2)
Current law seems to support the idea of granting patent rights for programs in the context of "general purpose computer programmed with software" or a "computer readable storage medium embodying software"? Really? What law is that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's right there in 35 USC 101. In fact, I quoted the relevant part in my previous post.
A general purpose computer programmed with software is a machine, and 35 USC 101 says that machines are patent-eligible. A computer-readable storage medium embodying software which, when executed, performs the steps of some method is an article of manufacture, and 35 USC 101 says that articles of manufacture are patent-eligible.
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason patents suck is that, like locks, they only keep out honest people.
Certain powerful countries will use foreign technology without paying the fees the rest of the world has to. America and the rest of the free world needs to get real. The P in GNP is product, not paper.
I'm sick and tired of watching my country burden itself with regulations while allowing its "free trade partners" to play by their own rules. We can't tell them what to do but we can choose not to deal with them.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that software shouldn't be patentable (either directly or through the various loopholes that applicants use to get around the fact that software, when claimed directly, is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter").
How is a software algorithm ("a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations") not a "process?" How is a computer which has been programmed in a particular way not a "machine?"
But in my opinion, this should be a matter o
Re: (Score:2)
How is a software algorithm ("a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations") not a "process?" How is a computer which has been programmed in a particular way not a "machine?"
Software itself is not a process. The steps performed by a processor when executing the software do constitute a process. The algorithm underlying the software may be a process, but algorithms in the absence of practical application are considered "abstract ideas" which is one of the classes of judicial exceptions to patent eligibility - this is really what Bilski is all about. And a computer which has been programmed in a particular way is a machine, but the software with which it is programmed is not a
Re: (Score:2)
"And by what measure do you claim that the software arts continue to improve significantly faster than other areas of technology?"
By the sheer vast numbers of patent applications filed for inventions in the software arts.
That doesn't actually tell one much. Which is the faster moving area of technology: one with 1000 tiny incremental improvements per year or with 1 giant, paradigm-shifting leap per year? Or look at it this way, which moves faster: an area with 1000 improvements to technology used by one p
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very hypothetical argument. For it to be persuasive, this must not only come to pass but happen with sufficient regularity to outweigh the benefits of the patent system.
And yet no one credible has demonstrated the benefits of the patent system with regard to software patents. You are dealing in hypotheticals. You are claiming God exists and demanding the rest of us believe you unless we can prove he doesn't.
Even those with the most to gain from it, i.e., large corporations, are demanding reform, an
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, I would suggest that the faster an area of technology moves, the less it matters how long the patent term is. A patent in such an area will quickly become obsolete. It's actually stagnant technology where a long patent term on a rare innovation is most valuable.
A patent is a wall in front of progress. The faster the progress, the more the wall arrests. The whole point of patents is to encourage people to invent things so valuable that others would rather pay to be let through that wall than hav
Re: (Score:2)
That's a poor argument becasuse if that's true, that just means a particular 'device' would just become obsolete.
It shouldn't be patentable becasue it's math, and because it's a language.
You can't patent 2 + 2, and you can't patent a language.
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't be patentable because it's math
An algorithm alone may be math, but the use of an algorithm to solve a problem is not math. For example, consider a sorting algorithm. I can think about it, describe it, analyze its running time and space usage, I can prove it correct. That's all math, but none of it will actually sort numbers, much less solve a problem that relies on sorting numbers. Once an algorithm is applied to the solution of a problem, it ceases being math and becomes engineering.
Engine
Re: (Score:2)
Full source code (Score:3, Interesting)
I would not object to software patents if they actually provided the complete functional source code in the patent. You want a patent, you provide full disclosure.
No need to motivate disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents last for 17 years; product cycles in software are about 3. In other words, software ideas (even with complete source code) are usually worth zero after 17 years. In fact, almost all software ideas have the following characteristics:
Taken together, these mean that there is no need for software patents at all: people would invent software ideas all the time, even without patent protection (they did so for decades in the past), and they would benefit from them monetarily. Moreover, disclosing your software idea "for free" doesn't lose you much (this idea is not what makes your product unique) and gains you a lot -- it gains you all the ideas that everybody else discloses. The incentive to keep software ideas secret is so low that there is simply no need for patents to force disclosure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't see a need for this either, but do see a need for copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
Except one company could shut down the software industry.
My patented application uses a standard method to communicate to the database, now everyone either uses a different way or pays me.
That would cause fragmentation and would stifle development.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not object to software patents if they actually provided the complete functional source code in the patent. You want a patent, you provide full disclosure.
Only if I could implement the same mechanism using a different source code without infringing your patent. Otherwise a source code listing does no add any value to the society.
Knuth Misses the Point (Score:2)
Knuth's argument [progfree.org] misses the point. The distinction is not between mathematical and non-mathematical algorithms, but rather between an algorithm in the abstract and an algorithm as applied to a real world problem. An algorithm, in and of itself, lacks the utility required for patentability. Once applied to solve a problem, however, the invention is no longer the algorithm per se but rather its useful application, which should be patentable.
Suppose one invents an algorithm for efficiently solving systems o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The distinction is not between mathematical and non-mathematical algorithms, but rather between an algorithm in the abstract and an algorithm as applied to a real world problem. An algorithm, in and of itself, lacks the utility required for patentability. Once applied to solve a problem, however, the invention is no longer the algorithm per se but rather its useful application, which should be patentable.
So you are saying that the "Use of a sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items" should be patentable, but sorting algorithms themselves should not be?
The problem with that is that a new sorting algorithm would be novel. The application of that algorithm: not so much. Because you'll end up with "Use of bubble sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items", "Use of quick sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items", "Use of merge sort algorithm in the display
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that a new sorting algorithm would be novel. The application of that algorithm: not so much. Because you'll end up with "Use of bubble sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items", "Use of quick sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items", "Use of merge sort algorithm in the display of user selectable menu items".
Novelty is not the only bar to patentability. Non-obviousness is also a requirement. So the mere substitution of a new algorithm that acc
Re:Knuth Misses the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah I see. So the Pythagorean Theorem shouldn't be patentable, but using the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out how long to make the hypotenuse of a triangle with given sides you're constructing or how long the hypotenuse of an extant triangle with known side lengths is, should be.
Is math discovered or created? (Score:3, Insightful)
Intuitively we think of patents as applying to designs which man creates, but not to designs which man discovers. That system grants engineers compensation for their work of designing and provides them an incentive to design. So you can patent a telephone but not a fish. That "discovered or created" dichotomy works until you get to math because we do not know if math is discovered or created. Is mathematics a natural phenomenon which exists and is discovered by man or is it a thing which man creates? To summarize the summary, if it is the former, and programs are math, then programs should be un-patentable.
Though a philosophically entertaining line of analysis, perhaps a better approach to evaluating software patents would be purely to consider their social utility: How much good software is created at what price with or without software patents; Does the sum social burden of patent trolls, the cost of litigation, and restrictions on using proprietary algorithms outweigh the value of additional software created a result of the patent incentive?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it bullshit? Yes, but it has legal precedent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you can patent genes. Discovered, not created.
Is it bullshit? Yes, but it has legal precedent.
Well what many people find to be so vile about gene patents is precisely what you say, that genes are discovered not created, that they violate the "discovered not created" rule. So I would say that still, there is a "discovered not created" rule for patent eligibility and gene patents are a notorious exception to that rule, rather than saying that the existence of gene patents proves that there is no such rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is the use of symbols to describe the natural world
You're thinking of physics. Math is the use of symbols to describe other symbols.
All patents are math (Score:3, Interesting)
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics". I'll see your Howard-Curry isomorphism and raise you algorithmic information theory.
The Howard-Curry argument is essentially that anything that can be described on a computer is "math". Unfortunately, there is no patentable subject matter that does not have this property.
Even ignoring that, the part that is disingenuous about the Howard-Curry argument is that it also is directly applicable to electronic circuit design and chemical process patents in the same way it is applicable to a computer algorithms. I would find the argument less shady if it was not applied selectively by opponents of algorithm patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
Re:All patents are math (Score:4, Insightful)
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics
LOL. Algorithms are a subset of mathematics, no "argument" is necessary.
And the difference between software and all other patentable subject matter is that while other subject matter can be described by math, software literally describes math. That's what software is: Just another symbolic language for describing math, that happens to be conducive to being read by a machine.
Software is math in exactly the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c^2".
A stone flying through the air can be described by the math for a parabola. Language that symbolically represents that mathematical relationship is math, whether it's machine-readable or not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So when someone develops a way of doing something electronically that is novel, it should be just as worthy of receiving a patent as another idea that needs physical implementation. The milieu shouldn't matter.
Why shouldn't the milieu matter?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself. Whether this is something that can be built into a physical object or can only be programmed into electronic memory gates, the idea is what is important. With the idea, it is possible to recreate the actual implementation many times over.
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically, you're saying "welcome to the era of patented recipes"? I'm going to start patenting any unusual combination of ingredients that I haven't already seen on iron chef and just wait...
There's a reason that there are separate laws covering copyrights, patents, trade secrets and trademarks. It's because the "milieu" *does* matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An idea is vague. Here is an idea: getting people from one place to another. Now everyone who does that owes me.
It's the implementation that matters, not the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the benefit to society of allowing patent protection on software?
The benefits of allowing a monopoly on designs for physical processes is to overcome the high barriers of entry that such designs must overcome. Yet software has quite low barriers to entry and designs enjoy more network effects.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself.
I disagree. The believe the value of an idea is the net earning that this idea will earn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you really linking to an article that debunks the 7 basic plots myth as part of an argument that we have only seven basic plots? Or are the missing words in your third sentence critical?
Re: (Score:2)
> The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself. Whether this is something that can be built into
> a physical object or can only be programmed into electronic memory gates, the idea is what is important.
Well, what if the idea were, instead, worked into a painting? Or a song? That would be the realm of copyright, not patent. The point being, that an idea does not get protection simply because it's novel, instead protection is granted if it fits the criteria set forth by a law. Sometimes that mean
Re: (Score:2)
The value of a novel idea is in the idea itself.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. I can generate ideas all day; formulate a problem, put a few people with relevant knowledge in a brainstorm, and you'll have more ideas for solution than you can shake a stick at.
The only value in allowing patents at all would be if nobody, confronted with the same problem, would publicise or distribute a solution to that problem within the duration of today's patents. With the speed and ease of information distribution today, it's be
Re: (Score:2)
But you know that ideas are not patentable?
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:5, Interesting)
What does matter is the quality of the idea and the quality of the process to determine the validity of the patent application. This is where the problem lies today. It's not that people shouldn't get patents for software, it's that the patents that are being granted are of such poor quality that it calls into question the whole system.
In part, I think that the Redhat brief is consistent with this statement--the brief does not think that abstract ideas should be patentable (neither does the SCOTUS, PTO or Fed. Cir). If you read the brief carefully, it argues that patents on software are too vague to be useful and that the proliferation of vague patents makes the current system untenable. Compare that situation to, for example, patents that cover mechanical devices where the elements are discrete things that you can touch.
In patent speak, these are all problems under 35 USC Sec. 112. The problem for all of the briefs like this is that the issue before the SCOTUS is not 112, it's 101. Section 101 defines the "subject matter" of patents. It does not address the "quality" of the patents.
That said, a lot of people have argued in a number of places that really what's happening is that the PTO and the Fed. Cir. want to use 101 as a way to exclude poorly claimed inventions that step closer into the realm of mere abstract ideas and speculation than actual implementation.
But the SCOTUS does not take case to affirm the decision. So one of two things is going to happen: they are going to overturn the Bilski decision as too rigid or they are going to take the opportunity to rewrite the laws of 101 and 112.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:5, Insightful)
But real world development is much more like seatbelt manufacturing than number crunching. Systems must be developed, not algorithms. In fact, algorithms, for the most part, are already done. It's the combination of these disparate parts into a cohesive whole that is the cornerstone of CS in today's industry.
That sounds more like software engineering than CS to me.
Re: (Score:2)
'Outside of academia I don't see much economic value in "pure" CS.'
Hence explaining the large body of bad software.
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:5, Insightful)
It is using mathematics to derive algorithms that solve our problems.
I really don't see where math has "left" CS. As far as I'm concerned, the interesting aspects of CS are the ones that are still really just "doing math using computers".
Re: (Score:2)
This describes all engineering disciplines, it is hardly unique to CS. System and process models are (often quite literally) high-order algorithms, but they nonetheless remain patentable in conventional engineering disciplines. This is some of the most valuable intellectual property in engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
"I continual run in to programmers and "engineers" that don't even understand how a computer subtracts binary numbers."
Given the fact that most programmers implement binary subtraction algorithms on a daily basis .. oh wait.
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:4, Insightful)
You confuse CS with software development. Software development is better suited to a business college, though it is taking a long time for that shift to occur.
CS, at least at a decent school, is a true science and engineering discipline. A typical programmer is not a scientist or engineer in the same way as the steel worker isn't a structural engineer.
The problem really is the marketplace has been slow to realize that most applications can be developed without a single computer scientist involved. However if your application is dependent upon the reliability of a unique algorithm it might make sense to consult with a CS to ensure that the algorithm is implemented correctly in software and doesn't spit out 100,000 when it should display 65,535.
Fields like robotics, electronics, aerospace, etc, is where CS's should be working, where there isn't a library free or commercial to call upon and where the ability to communicate with real engineers as a peer is a must. I have known real Computer Scientists, and I have known over trained programmers.
What CS's really need to do is stop going to work as business software programmers... I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses. A CS degree needs to mean something... and writing code for a living when you have a CS degree only perpetuates the myth that a CS degree is required to write software.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't see many structural engineers actually welding steel, many chemists pumping gas, or many electrical engineers wiring houses."
And I don't see many CS's assembling 8 bits into bytes by hand. What I do see is structural engineers, chemists, and electrical engineers relying on computer software that incorporates their disciplines' knowledge to help them do their jobs.
Re:It's been a while since math was relevant to CS (Score:5, Insightful)
In some ways, CS is still tied to mathematics. It is quantifiable and therein lies its only true link to mathematics. The development and study of algorithms is what CS is all about, and to the extent that mathematics can be used to measure these things it is useful.
Please. Actual Computer Science is absolutely still math and all about math. And Software Engineering is still math in the sense that all programs are literally -- no analogy needed -- symbolic representations of math. Not "something that can be described by math", like the motion of a clock's pendulum. They are math in the same way that "a^2 = b^2 + c ^2" is math.
And just because programmers often take an ad-hoc practical engineering approach to coming up with the right mathematical equations to do the job they want, doesn't change the fact that you're not doing anything more than coming up with a suitable symbolic description of math.
Some programmers don't appreciate this even as they do it. Not appreciating the fundamental nature of what you're doing doesn't make it go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Any program you write is, at its most basic, nothing but a sequence of mathematical operations. Every single statement you write can be translated directly into a set of compares, additions, multiplication, subtractions, or divisions. Flipping a register is the same as setting it to zero and then adding the requested value to that zero.
They don't call them 'computers' for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the program checks if the flag is set and if so turns on led, right? That's a comparison, which IIRC boils down to binary subtraction.
Every sql statement is evaluated and executed based on tons of math... every string operations is tons of math... basically there is nothing you do that doesn't boil down to math at somepoint on a computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to understand how a program which sets a bit in a register to turn on an LED is math.
Setting a bit in a register is simply assigning a value to a variable. Extremely basic math. Every single instruction in a computer ISA is defined as a simple mathematical operation. There is nothing in x86 or any other ISA that requires that the "register" be an electronic device rather than simply a note you take on paper or beads on an abacus, and same with moves to and from the memory array aka matrix. "add
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another way to look at it:
Let's say you take the same sequence of symbolic mathematical operations (the program), and do them by hand with a pencil and paper.
When you get to the part where you calculate what the value of the "LED on" bit should be, if it's set, you turn on your desk lamp.
Are those calculations on the paper math, or aren't they? And how does you turning on the lamp matter?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you have is not that you have a wrong idea of programming, but that you have a wrong idea of mathematics. Most people only get educated into a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of mathematics and subconsciously think that something like the quadratic equation is the height of mathematical expression complexity.
However, nothing stops a mathematician from examining the consequences of much larger systems, such as might look like a program, and in fact mathematicians do. There's research into large numbers
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that really matters is whether or not granting patents in some field "promotes progress...", as the US Constitution says, and there are a number of reasons why it is a mistake to think about patents at the individual level and in terms of "worthiness", "natural rights" etc. [q.v. the hi
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents are problem specifically because they allow 3rd parties to screw around with this guy.
If he really thinks things through, he will quickly realize this.
We have to deal with the patent system we actually have rather than a rosey idealized view of it.
This guy is FAR better off just keeping his work a trade secret. So is the rest of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he means in polynomial time. In that case said developer would be fairly handsomely rewarded both with money and fame to give up his P=NP secret. Probably more so than he could as the worlds best traveling sales man consultant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't sound like such a good idea to me.
I'm against patents in all cases.
The first time I had to deal with patents was after the company I worked for had developed an electronic device. I was provided with a list of patents to read to figure out if we were infringing on these patents. The trolls, this was circa 1995, had already sent their cease and
Re: (Score:2)
...but we *already* have the technology to manipulate particles (electrons) as bits. The devices that do that are called "computers".
The computers themselves? The things that manipulate the bits directly? Patentable, to be sure...at least parts of them.
The instructions fed to the computers? No. Copyrightable? Yes.
We *are* being consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
No...that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. The instructions themselves are different from the particles. Whether undiscovered, residing in a human brain, written on paper, or stored in a disk or similar medium, the instructions themselves have zero effect. How do you write down the instructions to create a strange quark? What machine do you give these instructions to?
A machine or machines th
Re: (Score:2)
I think the hostility against Red Hat comes from a couple of sources. First of all, they pretty much present themselves as a proprietary software company. Go to redhat.com and see how long it takes you to get to a place where you can download their software for free, or indeed, to get any information to the effect that their products are in fact F/OSS. Now, this is turning out to be a pretty sensible approach market-wise -- AFAIK they're really the only organization in the Linux world that's making a hea
Re: (Score:2)
Second, RPM just sucks compared to apt
RPM [wikipedia.org] and APT [wikipedia.org] are two different concepts. RPM is comparable to DEB [wikipedia.org]. APT should be compared to YUM [wikipedia.org]
Back in the days I was deeply familiar with these, RPM was much more andvanced than DEB. It supported signatures (MD5 and PGP) and the build tool built the binaries from binaries and patches using a simple script - and the build components could also be packaged. Very nice, and by far the nicest of the two. The main problem with RPM happened later - multicolouring.
"RP