tkeller

7 ms·

1.
by tkeller 16y ago
Well, maybe so. But I stand by my disappointment at the lack of knowledge about patents around here. We don't understand patents, but we're mad as hell about them!
2.
by tkeller 16y ago
> Do you work in patent law? Yes. As for the effect on the community... well, are you just talking about the way that patents make software developers feel? Because obviously developers would know more about that than I do. But it's als
3.
by tkeller 16y ago
Well, that may be. But almost all of the posts you see around here decrying them are just steeped in ignorance. Titles like "Microsoft has patented <whatever the title of the patent is>. Software patents have to go." When the realit
4.
by tkeller 16y ago
No, I don't. I just get annoyed at all the misinformation that gets repeated about patents in general and software patents specifically. The discourse around HN is generally of a pretty high level, and it's disappointing to see people just
5.
by tkeller 16y ago
Rabble rabble rabble. I hate this attitude: I don't understand software patents, and I'm not going to take the time to learn about them, therefore they need to go.
6.
by tkeller 16y ago
> Basically, Allen got an omnibus patent that covers all these characteristics No. He didn't. And regardless of whether software patents need to go, ignorant media coverage certainly needs to go.
7.
by tkeller 16y ago
Do I think it's acceptable that adults are required to have some understanding of how the world around them works? Yes, I do.
8.
by tkeller 16y ago
The claims really are not particularly vague.
9.
by tkeller 16y ago
That's kind of my point. The title means nothing. The abstract means almost nothing. The figures mean almost nothing. Have a look here for a brief guide to reading a patent, written for nonlawyers. http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/ho
10.
by tkeller 16y ago
Have you actually read them? Read the claims? They're software patents, so plenty of folk will hate them just based on that... but they really are not poorly drafted patents.
11.
by tkeller 16y ago
Why would any of these people have consented to a search? If a cop approaches you in the parking lot, be polite but firm, and waive no rights.
12.
by tkeller 16y ago
He's trying to write this up as a neat hack ($300 for an hour of work? where do I sign up?), but all he's really done is waste a lot of other people's time to exploit a silly loophole. I wonder how many man-hours the bank spent moving and c
13.
by tkeller 16y ago
"It's funny how often we hear patent system supporters tell us that if you haven't actually gotten a patent for your invention, it's perfectly reasonable for someone else to go and patent it instead." I'm not sure I've heard anyone say this
14.
by tkeller 16y ago
I've read it twice. That says it all, I guess.
15.
by tkeller 16y ago
I see what you're saying, but... it's copyright infringement and license violation. Politeness is not a requirement.
16.
by tkeller 16y ago
Go back to Linux, this is iOS.
17.
by tkeller 16y ago
... eight months ago.
18.
by tkeller 16y ago
Exactly. There's nothing dishonorable about arbitrage.
19.
by tkeller 16y ago
Where would the U-232 contamination come from, if it's bred U-233? Does thorium also just sometimes decay into the lighter isotope?
20.
by tkeller 16y ago
It is, certainly. My only issue is that it wasn't treated like an approximation.
21.
by tkeller 16y ago
"... except for the problem of too many layers of indirection." (David Wheeler's corollary)
22.
by tkeller 16y ago
I am going to have to steal that line about the trees and the forest.
23.
by tkeller 16y ago
"Brazil's inflation rate hit 80 percent per month. At that rate, if eggs cost $1 one day, they'll cost $2 a month later." Really.
24.
by tkeller 16y ago
But this is true even if you never had an account. That's like saying you can't leave the internet, because people can still talk about you online.
25.
by tkeller 16y ago
> If the universe lasts forever, then any event that can happen, will happen, no matter how unlikely. In fact, this event will happen an infinite number of times. Umm... this does not follow. Their argument surely must be more convincin
26.
by tkeller 16y ago
Should it? I don't know. Will it? Absolutely. And what does "aggressively" mean? Making a patent unenforceable will have the same effect as invalidating it.
27.
by tkeller 16y ago
Seriously? This is your argument? Comparing software patents to slavery trivializes the suffering and evils of slavery.
28.
by tkeller 16y ago
This is simply not true. Regardless of how, say Microsoft, uses or doesn't use its patents, they account for a substantial percentage of its value on the books. If the accountants suddenly had to revalue them to $0, it would unquestionably
29.
by tkeller 16y ago
There are some big companies out there with a lot of their on-the-books valuation existing in the form of software patents. If they suddenly have to mark that stuff down to zero, imagine the crash...
30.
by tkeller 16y ago
As a commenter there noted, [thing] = stuff works too. I think I like that even better.

More ›