3 ms·
My point had nothing to do with the particulars of a supposed patent. Just knowing it can be done is a non-trivial obstacle in solving a problem. Add onto that
by hackinthebochs 13y ago
My point had nothing to do with the particulars of a supposed patent. Just knowing it can be done is a non-trivial obstacle in solving a problem. Add onto that general information that's usually discussed in relevant circles, and you may have enough information to "recreate" the solution to the problem. Judging the difficulty of a problem from this vantage point is the flaw I was referencing.
- georgemcbay 13y agoThere are vastly different values for "knowing something can be done". Consider: Knowing we could get a man to the moon and back pre-1960s vs. knowing we could implement "bounce scroll" on a cellphone. The latter example everyone who is a programmer "knew" prior to the iPhone even if they never actually considered it... because the implementation of it is so amazingly obvious. It is nothing but a good idea, and good ideas aren't supposed to be patentable. Which isn't to say they don't get patented, but that's a side-effect of how fucked up the patent system has become in the past 2 decades, not representative of what patents are supposed to be.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago>There are vastly different values for "knowing something can be done". I agree; not really relevant to the argument though. Note that I am not arguing in favor of bouncy scroll patents.