ntagonism to software patents has come from many credible directions, including Nobel Laureates. It's amazing that even programmers are often ignored in this debate because they favour copyrights, which enable them to still code freely, as in free of worries. They don't want patents, based on polls, studies and surveys. Even the EPO has articulated this conundrum and Glyn Moody remarks:
As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is a completely factitious distinction: it doesn't exist. Software is just a bunch of algorithms working on data, outputting data; it doesn't solve "technical" problems, it solve mathematical ones. Software is mathematics.
Needless to say, the 'inventor' du jour believes that any spontaneous idea can be turned into a patent (especially given a skillful patent lawyer), no matter how generic or lacking in value it is. Watch the following new video. At first sight it looks like a joke but it's not. ⬆
Fact #1: over time slop gets worse (training set is like some blurry JPEG). Fact #2: People's "smell" for slop improves over time, as they 'train' on slop and can detect it based on prior encounters. Put 1 and 2 together.
Richard Stallman's seminal manifesto and foundational (practical) work on GNU gave us a very solid system that facilitates productive work without concerns over spyware
