Re: .NET CLR? was no subject

["Timothy Rue" <address@hidden>]

On 07-Mar-02 17:31:23 Dan Weinreb <dlw@exln.com> wrote:

[snip]

 DW> However, for a patent to be considered "novel" or "non-obvious"
 DW> with respect to the "prior art" does not require a brilliant
 DW> insight.  The threshold for what constitutes "novel" in the
 DW> patent law world is much, much less than in the academic
 DW> literature world.  Patents are often for what most of us would
 DW> consider minor variations and very incremental improvements to
 DW> what went before.

 DW> If you try to prove in court that the subject of a patent is
 DW> "obvious to one skilled in the art", my impression is that the
 DW> bar is set rather high, i.e. it's relatively hard to prove.  (And
 DW> in all fairness, many new ideas seem "obvious" once you've had
 DW> them explained to you.)

 DW> Patents also use techniques such as "dependent claims" so that
 DW> even if the broadest interpretation of the patent is struck down,
 DW> narrower interpretations may remain standing.

 DW> (Note: I'm not saying anything one way or the other about whether
 DW> there, in fact, *are* brilliant new ideas in .NET or not.  I
 DW> don't know enough about .NET to say.  I'm just using .NET as an
 DW> example.)

On the Intellectual Property issues: (the following is not directed at
anyone specific - unless mentioned below - but rather general statements
form the other side [father physics and mother nature synergy] POV.)

There are some things that cannot be owned or otherwise constrained in
use.

Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas and there are more such
things on the list as well, these are the top three.

The reasons such things cannot be IP constrained is becaue they are in
essence more powerful than human control can handle in a manner of
enforcement or adhearance to man applied constraints. Language itself is
something that grows so long as it is not constrained in use rights or
royality payments, etc..

Any man made system that attempts or claims to have or place constraints
on such items are in essence undermining itself by presenting the
illusion, a falseness of power to constrain others. No different than
witch hunts, master race, slavery, irrational inqusitions, etc., only
proving a lack of being in touch with hard reality by those of the system.

The idea of applying minor variations to that which qualifies as non-IP
ownable, in order to alter it enough to make it IP ownable, is what we
already have alot of and in no way does such distortions create any sort
of "improvements" to what simply is (no matter what hype and marketing
babel is added). Rather what the results are is something less in value
and usability, the addition of constraints that otherwise do not exist.

Distorting physical reality is not going to get you something better in
reality, but only an illusion, and excape from reality. And don't we
already know where this leads? Haven't we enough examples of seemingly
impossible to solve problems (as in computer programming) as a result of
such illusions?

"make people need you" is an MS business attitude and inherently it must
distort reality for this attitude to "pay off" in non-direct ways. In
comparision consider how the non-constrained TCP/IP protocal payed off in
direct ways. non-direct meaning money, direct meaning functionality and
use productivity that then helps to cause money to flow.

To Be Clear: .NET is a distortion of reality one way or another and as
such it is also logically less than what can be and is defined by
physically reality. Physical reality does not state .net can't be used to
create GPL software. That constraint is a man made one, made of only
thought.

But how aware people are to what is........illusion or reality????
Reality doesn't care whether or not you are aware of it, it still is and
keeps on keeping on. Obvious? Wasn't it obvious the earth revolved around
the sun? Perhaps that non-obvious "idea" should bave been patented and
hidden in a vault forever (so as to support the those then in "control"?)

Would MS or what other company would like to have a patent on air?

All you have to do is communicate it in a difficult to follow language
that sounds and looks intellectually good and the patent office will
figure rather than look stupid for not really understanding, if someone
wants to oppose it, they'll have to pay the patent office something like 2
grand $$$ to start the process. Or be challenged in court by the IP holder
of air, where the judge who breaths it will do the patent office employees
job. No sweat of the back of the patent office employee. But benefit to
those who can fool the majority?

If you really want to solve the problems with advancement constraints in
the field of programming, then remove the false constraints and stop
promoting them. Don't be skerd, for skerd begets skerd.

If you do not know the difference between a 3D data array or 3D computer
generated graphics and 3D reality of length, width and height, that you
were taught in grade school, then the matrix has you. Take a vacation,
become unplugged.

The talking of a distortion of reality and improving upon it, some here
and some there, until it is a representation of reality, is NOT an EXCUSE
or a sneaking up method to Patent Reality. But the attempts to do so is
the essence of the collision path some have identified regarding IP
directions and patent offices judgement difficulties.

Father Physics and Mother Nature always wins. Their synergy is always
faster and stronger than a distorted representation of it.

Language is only as useful as it's agreed upon use. To automate it's use
(as in programming languages, and translations of) is to insure it's
agreed upon use. I.E. to automate the adhearance to a given languages
do's, don'ts, and standards is to insure against bugs of those types.

Isn't the goal of programming to make bug free applications? Or is it to
sell upgrades based on bug existance and removal? Where is the illusion?