Physical patents tend to include a great many details about how the systems described work. Even without illustrations, they're sufficiently documented that they actually CAN be constructed from the claims and any other supplemental materials.

Contrast to most software patents which list some arbitrary "using undisclosed comparison algorithm, verb the noun". The actual verb and noun are irrelevant because there is no way to get past the comparison algorithm. As an example, the patent you describe is completely worthless. With the only innovative part missing, any company creating an application that implements anything remotely resembling "quick sort in 3-D" will be sued into oblivion because the patent is overly broad. The specific method for computing filled space is the only patentable aspect of the invention since quick sort already exists and 3D models already exist. Of course, said method for computing filled space is likely to be math and shouldn't be patentable. Even if your method was not easily expressible as a series of number manipulations, you shouldn't get to claim a patent AND keep the actual innovation a trade secret. That is detrimental to the "Progress of Science...".

I don't think you were reading the same summary that I was. From everything about this in the summary, the symptoms of Asperger's will be added to that for Autism Spectrum Disorder, so any kid that would otherwise have been diagnosed with Asperger's will be "the autistic kid."

I think you're right about the benefits of removing Asperger's entirely, though. Asperger's-related social problems don't seem like they'd be helped at all by the added stigma of having a diagnosed "disorder."

Have you considered the possibility that the business of music distribution has changed drastically? In 1999, the primary form of music distribution was still CDs, 12-15 songs, take it or leave it. Is it possible that people were only listening to a fraction of the CD and that most CD purchases were made in order to obtain a single song that was quite popular with the bonus of some other songs that you may or may not also enjoy? Now, the consumer has the freedom to purchase only the songs that they want, leading to a drop from ~$13/sale to ~$1/sale. Add into that the fact that the music industry did everything in their power to resist digital distribution, giving Apple the first large bite at the apple (pun not originally intended). So now, the consumer may pay for only those songs that they feel are worth their money and they must also give some of the profits to Apple.

This is not to say that piracy hasn't played a role in the music industry's decline. But I would argue that the financial losses due to piracy have been largely over-hyped.

Legally, I don't think there is much difference. Ethically, though, there is a very large difference.

Please note that the rest of this rant is based on the current state of copyright as I understand it and that IANAL so I'm likely to miss something.

Copyright is enforced in such a way that for fair use the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than on the copyright holder (this is based on observation and I observe considerably more instances where something that is clearly fair use is declared infringing). Copyright lasts considerably longer than is necessary for anyone (I think we can all agree that most movies and music make the bulk of their money within -- and I'll be generous here -- the first 5 years). Availability of legal channels for obtaining copyrighted works is, in some cases, non-existent (I've tried finding plenty of movies from my childhood that never survived past VHS).

The way that copyright is enforced and the duration of copyright are unjust and I refuse to cower to an unjust and irrational law for the sake of the MAFIAA. Shorten the term of copyright to 5 years and place the burden of proof on the copyright holders to prove that a derivative work is not fair use and I'll be happy to comply.

#1. Actually, I'm implying that there would be more BitTorrent traffic that was non-infringing if more people weren't afraid to use it. The fear is caused, generally, by the negative things that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA (though certainly not restricted to just these groups) keep spreading about the technology.

#2. I never suggested that Napster was OK, I was merely commenting on the fact that it's creation boosted one particular file format's popularity. This was stated as an example of what a technology --once used for illegal purposes-- could do to influence future technologies.

#3. It could also be argued that you can't factor pirated music into sales figures because there are enough people of the opinion that if someone downloaded a pirated copy, then they probably wouldn't have payed money for a legitimate copy either. And again, it was more of a statement "This is where digital distribution of music began in earnest". Additionally, many people that downloaded music from P2P networks (happy?) were more than happy to purchase higher quality copies of those tracks once paid services became available.

#4. I don't really care that Apple doesn't use MP3. MP3s were just cited as an example. And when did I call it miraculous? All I said was that P2P networks propelled it into the spotlight, not that it was the supreme audio file format.

What percentage of BitTorrent traffic would be non-infringing if the RIAA and MPAA didn't continuously give a negative connotation to the technology? And what you're forgetting is that a lot of the technology in existence today is based on the work of people who used that same technology for questionable reasons. MP3 became a considerably more popular audio format because of the widespread use of Napster, as did the idea for digital music distribution. It could even be argued that Apple wouldn't even have as strong of a user-base without Napster's influence.