Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Defending software patents (Score 1) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47940695) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back
A detailed description of a process in a textbook is also enough for any skilled programmer. For Alice and Bilski you can find the steps to perform the process in any finance book. Pseudocode and flow charts don't teach anything when the process is well known. Chances are finance books have charts in them as well. If your talking about a brand new process then your not talking about a software patent. Your patenting a new business method.

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 1) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47940593) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back
I think they would of been better off ruling that performing a known process on a computer is not a new use of use of a known machine. It would of been much clearer ruling that would have had the same effect. Changing the process does not result in a new computer if the computer is a general use(turing complete) computer. They could do this without overturning prior precedent by explaining that the facts changed as software development matured. They could explain that programmers after some given date can be expected to be able turn any detailed description of a process into code without inventing anything. That their conventional steps is not novel and is obvious according to industry testimony.

Comment: Re:Defending software patents (Score 1) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47940087) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back
You dont' get it. I can get pseudo-code from the finance text book. Any detailed description of the process is pseudo-code. "put the bits of plastic together" is the transformation of that detailed description into actual code. A patent is just a poorly reworded description of that process. It is a description that I need some legalese to understand.

Comment: 101 comes first before 103 (Score 1) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47939751) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back
"suggesting an additional good or service... based on certain information obtained about the customer and the initial purchase" is not a 101 "process" as defined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has defined "process" as "technological process". Therefor it falls outside the statute and 103 does not apply. Even non obvious improvements that are actually novel would not apply. Your patent has to target something in the list of things in 101.

Comment: Re:Patent Attorney chiming in (Score 1) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47939557) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back

Section 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The supreme court has over the last century defined what the words in that statement mean.
The word "abstract" is just shorthand for "not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or new and usefull improvement thereof"
The supreme court has a very narrow and limited definition of "process" for this statute.

Comment: Re:Defending software patents (Score 2) 85

by ZombieBraintrust (#47939045) Attached to: Alice Is Killing Trolls But Patent Lawyers Will Strike Back
Patents don't disclose source code. So they don't teach a programmer how to "put the bits of plastic together". There is not enough utility in the patents. When creating a finanical application I am better off reading a textbook about finance than looking at patents. The textbook teaches the same thing but uses langauge a programmer can understand. If the patents disclosed souce code then there would be more fans. Patents could become an alternative to open source. The goverment could be using patents to build a library of code that future generations can build applications off of. Instead we get lawyers poorly paraphrasing existing knowledge.

Comment: Re:I've seen a place like that (Score 1) 225

by ZombieBraintrust (#47927405) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?
Depends on what you do. I have heard of a person the delivered sql that had no where clause. It quickly choked up all the databases. Slowed all applications enterprise wide. It caused a complete outage in a corporate application the workforce used. Took a few hours to fix during the work day. Of course they were fired. They were lucky they were not sued.

Comment: Re:Fear of changing code.... (Score 1) 225

by ZombieBraintrust (#47927029) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?
How do you revert 10,000 employees not being able to do thier job for 8 hours becasue someone pushed untested sql to production? Fear of changing code is countered by testing. If you know your changes are going to be tested there is nothing to fear. If your not testing then your going to fear changes to code.

Comment: Budget (Score 1) 225

by ZombieBraintrust (#47926949) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?
I think it is about having a small testing budget. You have budget to test the new feature but not the budget to test the whole application. Testing the feature involves the developer and client doing a day or two of work. Testing the applications involves a team of people running several days worth of formal tests. It is purely rational to push such testing off untill you have a larger release. One problem with Agile is you never get such a release. As everything is done in smaller chuncks.

Comment: Re: Ads (Score 1) 326

by ZombieBraintrust (#47911709) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion
Ohh I didn't mean my statement as a bash on Microsoft. Personally I think Mojang was too small to take the game where I want it to go. Mojang was just doing incremental improvements like adding bunnies and new types of dirt. I think Microsoft could put 200 people on it and makes something on the scale of grand theft auto.

Comment: Re:Ads (Score 2) 326

by ZombieBraintrust (#47909141) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion
Why would Notch leave 1.5B in cash in Mojang. He has like 40 employees and pays the rent on 1 building. Minecraft is the 1.5B tangible asset. Mojang could sell Minecraft to another developer for 1.5B. After selling Minecraft away there isn't a way for Microsoft to make another billion off Mojang.

Comment: Re:The big question is 'why' ? (Score 1) 326

by ZombieBraintrust (#47909021) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion
Unless the market has already decided that Minecraft is on the way down and the price has finally become something reasonable. Could be Notch was shopping this around for 10 billion before. I think a Minecraft game still has plenty left in it. I would purchase a version that had smaller blocks. I would purchase a version with an actual story. I would even try an Minecraft mmo.

A modem is a baudy house.

Working...