4 ms·
"I don't agree." The neat part about mathematics is that your approval, or anyones approval for that matter, is not necessary. If the proofs are solid, it hol
by burgerbrain 15y ago
"I don't agree."
The neat part about mathematics is that your approval, or anyones approval for that matter, is not necessary. If the proofs are solid, it holds. If you want to properly "disagree", demonstrated rigorously why the proofs are flawed.
"If it were that simple to overturn software patents it would have happened years ago."
You assume that the people in the position to make decisions are competent.
- anigbrowl 15y agoI articulated my reasoning in the following sentence. You assume that the people in the position to make decisions are competent. Not at all; there's a large volume of patent litigation, and it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the decision makers are competent to evaluate such elementary arguments. Your argument requires universal incompetence by litigators and/or decision-makers.
- burgerbrain 15y ago"Your argument requires universal incompetence by litigators and/or decision-makers." Incompetent and or comprimised. Yes.
- anigbrowl 15y agoSo basically you think the entire patent system is a giant conspiracy?
- burgerbrain 15y agoNo. Cooperation between individual entities is not required. All that is required is that a certain critical mass of the people involved be too incompetant to understand the math, too corrupt to care, or just malicious. Seeing as we're talking about lawyers and politicians here, I don't think this is all to stunning.
- anigbrowl 15y agoAh, if you're talking about politicians that's a completely different issue - then you have a good point, because changing the law requires getting a majority of legislators to vote in favor of reform. I'm talking strictly about litigation.