4 ms·
Though I disagree, I fail to see why it's being downvoted. (Added my grain of salt to fix it.) The thing is I'm sure there are some exceptions (Wolfram?), but i
by ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
Though I disagree, I fail to see why it's being downvoted. (Added my grain of salt to fix it.) The thing is I'm sure there are some exceptions (Wolfram?), but it's quite rare to find a person who's both an outstanding scholar and an outstanding entrepreneur.
- xamuel 14y ago>(Wolfram?) Wolfram is largely considered a crackpot by actual scientists and mathematicians, and for very good reason. See: http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/ http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/
- nitrogen 14y agoAttention conservation notice: Once, I was one of the authors of a paper on cellular automata. Lawyers for Wolfram Research Inc. threatened to sue me, my co-authors and our employer, because one of our citations referred to a certain mathematical proof, and they claimed the existence of this proof was a trade secret of Wolfram Research. I am sorry to say that our employer knuckled under, and so did we, and we replaced that version of the paper with another, without the offending citation. I think my judgments on Wolfram and his works are accurate, but they're not disinterested. I'm curious what proof Wolfram Research was so protective of that they would interfere with academic research to keep it a secret.
- tisme 14y agoThey knuckled under much too soon then. If you came by your conclusions independently then they just lost their trade secret. Trade secrets only protection is that they're secret, and you have no innate right to that secrecy.