From the article:

"I can't prove this was due to a cosmic ray, or even a hardware error. It could have been some OS bug in my kernel that accidentally did a wild write into my memory in a way that only flipped a single bit. But that'd be a pretty weird bug."

Dude you have a lot of faith.

-paul

You don't know that they aren't.

Look, just like there are incompetant programmers that write bad
code there are incompetant lawyers that badly prosecute or defend
a case, and there are judges who don't get things right either.

You don't know what happened in these individual cases until
you have studied the court records in detail. Furtunately
judgments are usually available online so you can read these
in full. Why don't you select an example of your choosing
and study it?

Anti-patent news media will select the most sensationalist
aspect of the case and portray it unfairly in order to attract
YOU to read it. It doesn't mean the case is indicative of
a bad system.

Slashdot seems to have gone down the road of sensationalising
this subject. The same way that non-tech news forums
sensationalize stem cell research.

The most amazing part is that the most UNtrue posts get the
highest moderation value.

This has now become a forum of people who have collectively
agreed to NOT understand the patent system and support each
other in a voice of a non-cause. It's a totally invalid and
non-sensical rebellion empowered by concensus.

> I'm sure that a team comprised of [...]

well this has already happened, and is continuing to happen.

Have you ever found out anything for yourself in your life
instead of just quoting selected second hand statements of
other people?

-paul

> No. They are NOT. In fact the law specifically PROHIBITS them.

No it does not. It specifically prohibits PURE software patents.
Once again you show you have never read the actual paragraphs in
law, but are prepared to rant about it none-the-less.

> so how on earth [...]

Once again you make it clear that you have never read a patent
in your life - at least not a "software" patent. Once again
you take your little knowledge (of mechanical patents) and
generalize it into things you know nothing about.

It is pretty curious to me why you needed to pay a lawyer
to file a patent when it would have been accepted by the
South African patent system anyway.

The end of all patents is something that, like most of your
giberish, is a purely theoretical subject of no benefit to
discuss.

It all sort of gives a clear picture of the sort of general
personality disorder you seem to have.... living in a dream
world etc., and drawing analogies between the patent system
and apartheid. etc. which is basically bat-shit insane by
anyone's measure.

-paul

Then can I please have your four patent numbers.

Software patents are legal in South Africa as they are anywhere else,
both with and without the patent reforms advocated by "slashdotters".

You just need add to the prologue of the patent text "a generic computer
comprising of CPU and volatile storage..." and then it is no longer a
"software patent".

It is only PURE software patents that are excluded by anti-software
legislation. It so happens that there are almost no PURE software
patents anywhere because lawyers are always careful to include the
text above just to be sure. And in any case, a PURE software
patent would have no utility so would be excluded from admission
in any case.

Because the above is not understood by software developers is
why they are erroneously campaining against this straw man.

-paul

> I don't believe you have the slightest evidence [...]

We can discuss further after you admit you have never
read a single patent in full.

-paul

In the say way I am sure you can show a verbal parallel between
any two items of subject matter.

This doesn't mean the parallel is useful or applicable.

You are too lazy to spend the time understanding what the patent
system is really about because your own pre-conceived opinions
excite you too much.

People like you - who have intense opinions about things they
know little about - are amongst the biggest problem makers.

It called "filling in the gabs in one's knowledge with
generalizations."

Please realise that though you may think this makes you look
really smart - it is actually very transparent.

-paul

The world of pure theory based on scant pieces of info is a fun place to visit.

In your case, these are the small pieces of info you happen to have run into while traveling in the dark.

Thanks for this long essay explaining what should be obvious to anyone
who engages in this discussion. You needn't have waisted your time.

You think because you have read about the different types of IP that
you are now an expert. Have you ever APPLIED for a patent or trademark
yourself? No, you have not.

Have you ever looked through the patent or trademark archives and actually
read real patents IN FULL to understand how patent law works in practice?

Also no.

You say "people" are doing this and that. Says who? Says slashdot posters?
Have you ever downloaded any of those patents and read them?

You need to come out of your world of sitting in your deck chair and
staring out over the ocean and theorizing about stuff, and believing
everything you hear.

-paul

"They"??

how do you know this?

In actual fact a patent has to apply to a specific utility to be
accepted. Please go read some real patents on google so that you
know what you are talking about.

-paul

Because you don't understand it, you find it threatening.

There are many systems in our society that are not perfect, but for
which there is no better solution.

If you would like to propose BETTER legislation than we currently have,
then please do. But then you must ACTUALLY PROVIDE VIABLE LEGAL WORDING.

Don't complain and then say that SOMEONE ELSE must make the fixes using
a magic wand.

I think what you will find when you investigate this thoroughly, is that
the sort of changes that the "free software" community would like to
institute don't make legal/workable sense.

-paul

I have been a C developer for 15 years.
I know the difference between software and hardware.

But YOU on the other hand do not know anything about patent
law. Patent law, and patents themselves, are like algorithms
that cannot distinguish between between software and
hardware the same way as a computer algorithm doesn't
know whether it is the real AbbeyRoad writing this,
or someone who stole AbbeyRoad's password.

Of course Patent law is a lot easier to understand
than software. So I am sure if you are good at
writing software, spending some time reading through
patents (or better yet, trying to write a patent) will
sort out your misguided views faster than you can say
Knuth.

-paul

Your point is non-sensical.

Right NOW, outside of your dream world, the patent system is intrinsic
to the functioning large segments of our economy. And you clearly
have no idea how this patent system works because you have never taken
the time to read a real patent in your life.

-paul

You live in the USA, where the constitution actually does NOT mention patents at all.

But in patent law in general, there is no real distinction beteen algorithms
and mathematics. Patent law in fact does NOT restrict someone from patenting
pure mathematics. This is just what people on slashdot say who do not
understand patent law and have never read a patent in their lives.

What patent law actually says is that an invention that does not have a specific
PHYSICAL utility cannot be patented. This prevents someone from filing a patent
on an aircraft part and then claiming infringement on a gardening tool.

In actual fact enormous numbers of pure mathematics patents are filed each year.
They are just written within the context of a particular industry - like for
example medical imaging, or broad-band communications.

-paul