- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
you cannot say because computer science uses math, therefore it is an abstract. What is an abstract idea?
2.An abstract idea is something not applied to reality (real world). A puzzle exists in the real world and applied to the real world. I'm looking at a beautiful mathematically designed puzzle that puzzlelady sells right this very minute. I can touch it, manipulate how it fits together.
3. No one is getting patents on theorems. Your examples are both tiles and puzzles.
4. You lead with your land example. Rand and other Objectivists have clearly refuted and rejected your argument. Yet you continue to make it, ignoring that patents are based on Locke's natural rights NOT land.
When you spoke on your other post about how we can all fool ourselves, please consider Feynman's advice on bending backwards. You are missing key, logical concepts of patent law. In fairness, 101 is not well-written, however, it says METHOD-which includes algorithms, tiles and puzzles. you have been shown this logically and somewhat patiently time and again. Yet, you ignore that reasoning in favor of pushing an illogical agenda-a religious fervent need to discredit patents.
-1 for posting an article with an incorrect premise. Objectivists disagree with your point of view.
The key problem at least as far as intellectual property is concerned is that the world and the US now all agree on FIRST TO FILE rather than on first to invent. So, do you advocate for a change in US Patent Law? Do you agree with me that it is not objective?
1. Penrose obtained patents in three countries on the MATHEMATICS by claiming that puzzles, floor tiles, and other applications COULD come from them. He produced no puzzles for children, no floor tiling kits for builders. He only produced a theorem.
I agree that he should have gotten the recognition of intellectual property that he did - even if patents are an imperfect way to achieve that. Mathematical ideas should be granted some kind of property status. Note that we achieved this in the past with COPYRIGHT. That may not be enough or it might not be the proper instantiation.
2. As for software being an algorithm, you seem not to be a programmer yourself. Many other people here are. Perhaps one can explain your point of view using a computer program.
-----------------
Newton's square root equation
http://www.school-for-champions.com/alge...
The equation to use in this method is:
√ N ≈ ½(N/A + A)
where
N is a positive number of which you want to find the square root
√ is the square root sign
≈ means "approximately equal to..."
A is your educated guess
[repeat by re-entering A into the first equation -- MEM]
--------------------------
That is not patentable. This is:
10 REM MIKE MAROTTA. FEB 5, 1987. NEWTON'S ALGORITHM FOR SQUARE ROOTS
19 LIMIT= .0001
20 PRINT "ENTER A NUMBER"
21 INPUT X
56 XN = X/2
60 R1 = (XN + X/XN)/2
70 IF ABS(XN-R1) < LIMIT THEN GOTO 80
75 XN = R1
76 GOTO 60
80 PRINT "THE SQUARE ROOT OF ";X;" = ";R1
Basic dialects allowed the direct translation of this into machine code. Basic compilers did exactly that. Moreover, the algorithm could then be programmed into an integrated circuit "chip" and be patentable without a doubt -- except, of course for the problem of PRIOR ART. Dale Halling called considerations of PRIOR ART "subjective" and damaging to intellectual property rights via patents.
Perhaps so, perhaps every incremental improvement deserves property rights protection.
You are arguing against a strawman of your making and not addressing my concerns at all.
------------------------------------
1.an inventor does not have to manufacture the idea in order for it to qualify as an invention. Please see the first patent in the US. a METHOD of making potash
2) what is your demonstrable point in showing some simple code? the patent is not granted on the code per se. It is the execution of the code in a physical machine, i.e. electrical circuit. Code by itself is just lousy prose and is protectable by copyright
Personally, I didn't see the point of the blog.
And was that you that gave me the down point? Why was what I posted spam or worthy of a down point?