Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

As an outsider, define your bloody terms. You've used algorithm, theorem, program, and "basic math" interchangeably, and even I can say that those are not the same thing.

[Vector]

Me?  I think that algorithms are close enough to theorems that they should be treated the same way, and should not fall under the purview of copyright.  Programs... dunno about particular programs, but I feel like you could probably copyright them.  Basic math should obviously not be copyrighted.

[Max White]

So, Vector, what is the difference between an algorithm and a program?

[Nadaka]

Yea, I expect you would.
That is why I'm so surprised that somebody I respect can actually think that letting people own there work is a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Let's say I make some amazing new algorithm that allows for something pretty useful like say, rendering, significantly faster. Do you mean to tell me I shouldn't have the rights to this, and that my work is just fair game for anybody to take?
Can you honestly say that is moral?

I have not said that people should not own the product of their work.

Patents and copyright are different, they have different rules and cover different things. And not everything that a person makes is subject to either of them. And only under an unholy abomination of tormented logic is something covered under both.

[alway]

Let's say I make some amazing new algorithm that allows for something pretty useful like say, rendering, significantly faster. Do you mean to tell me I shouldn't have the rights to this, and that my work is just fair game for anybody to take?
Can you honestly say that is moral?

Yes. Because the copyright system bars anyone else from using it, whether or not they came up with it on their own. If you don't want to tell others about it, that's your issue.

But to bar others from using it just because you figured it out first? That's just wrong. Particularly because, especially in cases like that you mentioned, an algorithm is just math. In many cases you can't just go and do one better; you aren't driving innovation when you say "See these efficient algorithms? You can't use those; your algorithm has to be worse." Because there are physical limits to efficiency, as well as limits to the ways of doing something. If, for example, all sorting algorithms with time complexity n*log(n) were copyrighted, it would have massive negative connotations for the entire industry, and slow the progress of humanity as a whole.

[Vector]

A program is an implementation of an algorithm.  So, much like I don't think you should be able to patent a plot or a translation method but should be able to sell books, I don't think you should be able to patent methodology or plans in general.  Like... I make a theorem, so everyone who wants to use the data in that theorem or its methods has to pay me?  The usual statement about patent is that the profitability of it gives incentive for people to create, which they wouldn't have otherwise.  But it also creates a barrier to entry for other people to create, which, in my opinion, creates a bad system.

And, more than that, if someone else comes up with the same idea out of their own ingenuity (very common in math and, I assume, the more abstract forms of computer science), all this does is punish independent cleverness.  I don't think that's right, either.

[SalmonGod]

Was going to chime in when the conversation moved, but it seems to be staying here.  Most of you probably know what I'm going to say anyway.

I think you guys are arguing this from the wrong angle.  The more important question is this.  Is it really worth crippling progress with intellectual property for the sake of compatibility with pre-existing economic structures?  Can you imagine how much faster and easier we could get things done if information were free?

[Mini]

I'd like to note it's entirely possible to make money off of coming up with a faster algorithm for something, you just have to keep it secret (with things such as NDAs).

[Descan]

Me?  I think that algorithms are close enough to theorems that they should be treated the same way, and should not fall under the purview of copyright.  Programs... dunno about particular programs, but I feel like you could probably copyright them.  Basic math should obviously not be copyrighted.

No, all of you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Basic math should obviously not be copyrighted.

2+2=Do The Dew

[Skyrunner]

Often in history, multiple people come up with the same idea independently. Quaternions were discovered by two independent people, apparently.

[Sirus]

Anyone who has knowledge of C, please check my post in the programming thread. I've had it up to here

* Sirus  gestures towards the ceiling

with this code and its refusal to work properly despite looking functionally identical to other code I've written.

[SalmonGod]

There's also the fact that intellectual property laws are more often than not used by businessmen to steal ideas from the people actually responsible for them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Often in history, multiple people come up with the same idea independently. Quaternions were discovered by two independent people, apparently.

It's pretty hard for that to happen these days, though. The rate of idea creation has been jacked up so high by population and scientific advancement that two people coming up with the same idea quickly enough to have not heard about the other is rare.

[Vector]

Eh, there's still enough of it in math.  The math community is kind of. . . weird.


Side note: I am so fucking done with college.  Done!  Done with teachers setting folks up to fail!  Done with my batty schedule and its weird work hours!  Done with grades!  Done with meaningless busywork!  I just want to LEARN STUFF.  All the stuff!

I actually think I'll enjoy graduate school, but I'm not very fond of undergrad.