[wellylug] Mini-ITX Motherboard

[Pete Black]

<rant>

The problem is that  computer algorithms are all, in essence, simple 
binary manipulations and computations. Do you think that Newton should 
have been given a patent on Newtownian physics, and anything that 
depended on their observed effects (i.e. all macroscopic physical 
motion) should have resulted in a payment to Newton?

Mathematics is fundamental knowledge, that has been with the human race 
for thousands of years - to start assigning ownership of mathmematical 
concepts based on the extremely dubious assertion that somehow the 
application of an algorithm in a different media (e.g. adding a column 
of numbers on a piece of paper is not patentable, but the idea that a 
computer could add a sequence of number stored in RAM is patentable - to 
me, is absurd.

Every numerical sequence that ever has and ever will be written appears 
somewhere in the infinite stream of digits that compose the number pi  
-  in some sense,  as we push against the boundaries of what we don't 
know we are only discoverers, not 'inventors'. Patents are designed to 
compensate inventors and manufacturers for the economic hardships of 
physical manufacturing - where the cost producing items that implement 
new ideas incurs massive expense and attached risk  - in the digital 
realm, no such barrier to entry exists - it is as simple for me to tool 
up to produce a new application as it is for Microsoft, IBM or Apple. 
There is no need to protect the investment in the means of production, 
because the means of production are already free and public.

Software patents are blatant protectionism on the part of large 
corporations - As implemented, software patents exist only to lock new 
players out of entering established markets, and act as 'cold war 
nuclear stockpiles' to reduce the threat of litigation between the big 
players.

There is no point having software patents when it is effectively 
impossible for the patent office to search for prior art or evidence of 
novelty - There is no fairness or apparent legitimacy whatsoever in the 
patent office's current patent-awarding practices, and offical support 
for software patents will exacerbate this problem greatly.

Keep on patenting computer algorithms and  you'll find that as soon as 
someone figures out how the brain really works - expresses the tangled 
mass of neurons that provide our identity as human beings as a 
computer-implementable 'invention' - your 'soul' will be owned by some 
megacorporation.

Screw that. In my not-so-humble opinion, people end up so confused by 
the detail and the legalities they completely lose sight of the simple 
reasons for the existence of patents in the first place. I have yet to 
see any tangible evidence that software patents do anything but retard 
the flow of new ideas and new techniques toward common usage, and until 
someone can satisfactorily demonstrate to me that this is not the case, 
I remain opposed to software, genetic and and any patents covering 
simple expression of fundamental knowledge.

</rant>

Anyway, erough about this from me. Its a beautiful day out there today 
and i'm going to try and waste less of it in front of a computer screen

-Pete
 




> Jethro Carr wrote:
>
>> bloody RIAA! I would blame them for stupidity, but they proberly have a
>> patent on that. ;-)
>>  
>>
> I still fail to see peoples issue with patents and the protection of 
> intellectual property. I certainly would patent anything (that was 
> patentable) I created that was unique to protect my own "invention" 
> and potential income stream from use of said creation.
>
>
>
>