Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The scientists of the day couldn't really use his system for anything productive
Don't be silly. Kepler was, by all means, a scientist and he based his "Mysterium Cosmographicum" on Copernicus' "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". Do you really find Kepler's work non-productive?
BTW, both Kepler and Newton were wrong too.
Copernicus came up with quite blasphemous idea that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. He changed completely bonkers model of the Solar System to vaguely correct one, with the Sun in the centre. Copernicus' model predicted the observed backward movement of the planets and few other things. Kepler was one of the few scientists who did not reject the heliocentric model. Kepler refined Copernicus' model 50 years later by changing the reference point from the centre of Earth's orbit to the centre of the Sun and by making orbits elliptical. Newton corrected Kepler's big mistake nearly 100 years later, by coming up with the idea that the gravity, not geometry, is the key ingredient.Yet Newton's equations are wrong by giving the certain result rather than the probability distribution, which makes Newton's work useless for quantum physicists.
I don't get the idea why the 3 scientists came up with major milestones in science but only 2 of them are worthy.
USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to read read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders at that rate. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. The court cases show that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. There are far more "possibly relevant" patents granted than 1 in "months or years".
It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Can anyone be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? Would that be a sufficient defence line in case of any patent litigation?
Analogy: can a person be sues and found guilty of trespassing if:
1. The forbidden area is not clearly marked, but only described in broad and fuzzy terms,
2, There were millions of forbidden areas and
3. New forbidden areas were added in form of a complex, multi-page descriptions at the rate of 130 per hour?"