Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty <at> sbcglobal.net> writes:Shrug. Software patents. They are ALL based on patenting algorithms. These may be a little more obviously "mathematics", but don't seem fundamentally different.My response exactly. It's not an attempt to "patent Mathematics". It's an attempt to patent applications of mathematics to a process. Different thing. In principle, no different from the LZW patent.I have never said I think the LZW patent is OK! In fact I don't. Software patents suck.
I don't like software patents, either. But they are not an attempt
to patent Mathematics, which was my first point. And, it's not in
principle different from something which has been going on for some
time, which was my second point. Another point of my message, which
perhaps escaped you, is that it's not worthy of making any fuss over,
unless one attacks the *principle* of software patents, which doesn't
seem to be happening in this country. So, the OP was a *yawn* for me
until and unless the author is willing to lead some kind of general
program to eliminate software patents altogether. I'd like to see
patents eliminated altogether, but that's another story.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
