"What is 'Galt's Gulch?'"

"Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."

"Like-minded" does not mean your spreading any ideas you feel like in your religious hatred for Ayn Rand's philosophy.

"Collective" in the definition statement, included in quotes, is a joke, throwing it back in your face.

blarman: "Things I think should apply for software patents: linked lists, the RDBMS, sort algorithms, new programming languages, "

You believe that sort algorithms should be patentable? Abstract algorithms of that kind also include every algorithm of numerical analysis, from Gauss quadrature to splines, wavelets, the finite element method, solution of integer programming problems with branch and cut, finite state machines, boolean minimization with prime implicants, and on and on for entire libraries of books and journals. All of it is theoretical knowledge. Is that what you meant to include?

I think he is arguing that programming a commonly known and used algorithm should not be patentable, i.e., the shear act of programming it, not that all patents must be for devices that contain all and only original elements that have never before existed. The dispute seems to be over exactly what the patent in this case was claimed for, not whether it was black magic.

That doesn't mean that every opposition to some patent or patent standard as overly broad is socialist. Some libertarians oppose patents -- with the typical a-philosophical anarcho mentality, which is more crudely collectivist in implementation even if not intentionally socialist. But there are technical disputes over what should be patentable and which are not motivated to destroy property rights or grease the skids for socialism. Overly broad patents granted for obvious and common ideas are also destructive of property rights. The question is how to properly define and delimit them to protect the property rights of creators who deserve them rather than grant a "property right" to someone who does not.

Your ignorance of how computers works is monumental.

You don't understand how software and computers work. Your clearly unqualified to comment, but I am sure that will not stop you from doing so.

Not one of whom is technical expert, not one of which is legally or factually qualified to be a patent attorney. Your really have no idea what you are talking about.

Precision in concepts is important, and I know I shouldn't say it, but precedent suggests you may receive this kind of response: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/96...

I agree that you are confused, have no idea what property rights are, and you are clearly unable to follow or present a logical argument.

As explained elsewhere on this page, software is not a way of wiring an electronic circuit. The circuits in the computer are already "wired" (now "printed"). The software is a sequence of steps implementing decisions by algorithms that put the circuits into different electronic states as the steps are traversed. Some circuits are custom designed to implement specific software.

Any program can in principle be implemented directly in hardware (beyond just rigging it to run what is still a general purpose computer), which raises the questions of what kind of circuits employing what kind of logic are patentable and does that then automatically extend to the corresponding software version? It doesn't seem that the layering of software and hardware should make much difference.

Not if they really understood property rights, which is the point

Robbie BULL SHIT. Facts matter if you think the difference between a Monopoly and Property Rights is splitting legal hairs, then you are intellectually dishonest.

But the circuits they used were hardware, not software. Software made it possible to use general purpose computers without changing the hardware.

khalling: "The Justices are just not scientific minds. and certainly not well versed in patent law."

The Justices each have staffs of legal experts who are in turn expected to do the required research. This opens the question of what did they do to find how what else they needed to know rather the matter of whether the Justices are personal experts in patent law.

The evidence that Thomas and Scalia are strong on behalf of property rights is their record in defending them in the realm of land rights, etc. They do understand and support property rights, but that in itself does not mean that they understand the source and meaning of intellectual property rights in particular. They may very well have intended to support property rights in this case, but didn't how to do it and what it meant for each side.

Perhaps

Robbie,

I am not being technical I am talking about facts. If we were discussing Global Warming and I did not know the basic facts I would expect and I know you would oblige in correcting me. If I persisted in obvious mistakes, I doubt your patience would last as long as mine has.

Let's start with basics:
1) you do know what a property right is
2) you throw around the idea that patents are monopoly, which shows you do not understand 1. You accept the Socialist definition of monopolies which were designed to attack all property rights.
3) You have professed knowledge of whether Alice's invention is patentable. But you don't know how patent law works, you don't know how to read claims, but then you complain that I point out your ignorance. That is just whining.
4) Finally your position is advocating theft. Sorry I am not patient with people who advocate theft and mooching.

It is I that should be offended by you and blarman. If I comment on something in which I do not have expertise, I am careful and try to not over reach. For instance, there was an extensive discussion of new Nuclear Reactor designs. I did comment, but made sure that I did not over reach my knowledge.

I have clarified this above.

blarman you are incorrect. and I am concerned you are making fundamental decisions on incorrect information. A property right cannot be a monopoly Property rights re based on creation and a monopoly is a grant by the govt that interferes with with others' rights to contract and/or their property. It provides a special access or market to a specific player.
Patent: a property right. A patent does not interfere with other property rights. A patent does not give you a right to make or sell your invention. an example: if I were to invent the micro-controller and someone had the patent on the integrated circuit, then I could not produce my micro-controller without violating another's patent on an integrated circuit.
One is a property right the other is an interference with people's natural rights. Please study the differences because your opinion has influence and this is an intellectual war we have to win on moral foundations.

What is interesting is that the reason s/w is licensed is probably because it could not meet the warranty requirements of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Thus s/w companies licensed their s/w to avoid this issue. This has caused a number of other problems.

In your case, it seems to me that people are probably just trying to avoid paying you.

OA,
yes. We already know AR was very deliberate in her writing. It was no accident that Rearden and Galt were both inventors. Directive 10-289 is the literary equivalent to a Supreme Court decision such as Alice's last week. Thanks for reminding us.