xkcd

by **Arariel** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:11 am UTC

Surprised we don't have a thread this.

Spoiler:

Basically, Oracle is claiming Google violated the copyright on the Java APIs by replicating their functionality in Android's Dalvik virtual machine.

If Oracle wins, does this mean we can all stop using bloody Java?

by **sourmìlk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:39 am UTC

Why all the Java hate? I'm not a huge fan of programming in it (mostly because of how much I'm falling in love with C++), but it isn't really a bad technology.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I understand Oracle's argument here. What do you mean by "replicating their functionality"?

by **Arariel** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:56 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Why all the Java hate? I'm not a huge fan of programming in it (mostly because of how much I'm falling in love with C++), but it isn't really a bad technology.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I understand Oracle's argument here. What do you mean by "replicating their functionality"?

I have to learn it for my AP exam next month. As far as languages go, it's definitely one of my less favourite ones.

Wired wrote:Oracle says that all 37 APIs may not contain the same source code as its Java code, but that they have the same structure, sequence, and organization and that this means the overall architecture was copied. The company also accuses Google of copying its Java user manual and documentation.

by **Meem1029** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:56 am UTC

Google wrote their own version of a Java VM, implementing the APIs that are core to the language on their own. Oracle is claiming that they have copyright over the APIs. Google is claiming that you can't copyright a language (true) and that the API is an essential part of the language and therefore also not covered by copyright. Oracle is claiming that the API is an expression of the concept and therefore is eligible for copyright.

Honestly, it could turn out worse for Oracle if they win this. Actually, I see this lawsuit hurting the use of Java in many places no matter the result. Many open source projects are going to have problems with this, not to mention Android app developers.

by **sourmìlk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:05 am UTC

I'm having trouble seeing where the damages are for Oracle.

by **Arariel** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:09 am UTC

Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

by **nitePhyyre** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:14 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I'm having trouble seeing where the damages are for Oracle.

If you take Oracle's side, then Google should have been paying royalties on each copy of Android.

by **sourmìlk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:21 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I'm having trouble seeing where the damages are for Oracle.
If you take Oracle's side, then Google should have been paying royalties on each copy of Android.

Ehhh... I don't buy it. Java's libraries do not, to my knowledge, contain code that couldn't be easily derived on its own. It's why, though technically protected, the patent / copyright / whatever on the marching cubes algorithm couldn't be enforceable.

by **gametaku** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:00 pm UTC

Arariel wrote:Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

We kind of have that, it's called C, and there is also C++. If you want virtual machine C# is a standard ecma, ISO/IEC

by **KnightExemplar** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

Oracle yet again wastes the goodwill of their company on ridiculous issues.

This isn't (just) a reason to avoid Java, this is a reason to avoid Oracle and Oracle products. Its a shame really... after Sun Microsystems spent so much building up goodwill in the programmer community by releasing Java as Open Source...

If Oracle wins, does this mean we can all stop using bloody Java?

Skilled craftsmen do not complain about their tools. You choose the tool that is most suitable for the work. If an organization has a 3,000,000 LOC web application written in Java... you write your code module in Java. Period. It is not worth it to migrate a system of that size just because you "don't like the language". Especially when Java programmers are cheaper to hire, because everyone is learning it right now.

99% of the time, the language doesn't matter anyway. Its all about the API and Framework. Ex: JBoss, Hibernate vs Structs, RoR, Drupal. A programmer should be skilled enough to switch languages to match his organization in today's environment.

by **Arariel** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:28 pm UTC

gametaku wrote:
Arariel wrote:Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

We kind of have that, it's called C, and there is also C++. If you want virtual machine C# is a standard ecma, ISO/IEC

C# is Microsoft, and proprietary I'm sure. And if it's not, this lawsuit could set a precedent.

KnightExemplar wrote:Oracle yet again wastes the goodwill of their company on ridiculous issues.

This isn't (just) a reason to avoid Java, this is a reason to avoid Oracle and Oracle products. Its a shame really... after Sun Microsystems spent so much building up goodwill in the programmer community by releasing Java as Open Source...

And then there was the OpenOffice.org/LibreOfficce debacle. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to make OpenJDK proprietary or end it or something.

by **KnightExemplar** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

Arariel wrote:
gametaku wrote:
Arariel wrote:Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

We kind of have that, it's called C, and there is also C++. If you want virtual machine C# is a standard ecma, ISO/IEC

C# is Microsoft, and proprietary I'm sure. And if it's not, this lawsuit could set a precedent.

A precedent for Oracle. Oracle is one of those bastard companies.

Microsoft generally is clear about the licenses that they issue. Microsoft hasn't touched the Mono project for instance... but instead cooperates with them by helping draft ECMA standards. (Mono is an Open-Source implementation of the .Net framework)

Its about the community and their trust with a company. Oracle doesn't care about how much the programmer community trusts them, and thus went after this lawsuit. I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would be so stupid to do something similar.

EDIT: Found it: http://www.microsoft.com/openspecificat ... fault.aspx

Microsoft's public promise not to do this sort of bullshit.

by **Роберт** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:46 pm UTC

I'm currently taking a C++ class (yes I already graduated but I've been out of college for a while so I'm taking a refresher) and ALMOST every time the professor contrasts what C++ does with what Java does, I think "Java sucks". Only one parent class, Java? Really?

by **gametaku** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:52 pm UTC

Arariel wrote:
gametaku wrote:
Arariel wrote:Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

We kind of have that, it's called C, and there is also C++. If you want virtual machine C# is a standard ecma, ISO/IEC

C# is Microsoft, and proprietary I'm sure. And if it's not, this lawsuit could set a precedent.

Nope, C# is much a standard as C++, EMCAScript (javascript), and the other 19, 000+ standards (source

by **Griffin** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:30 pm UTC

Yeah, I'm not a fan of C#, but politically (or whatever the proper word is in this situation) its really not bad.

I don't have a problem with Java - its certainly not my favorite language, and starting a new project I'd never go with it, but its not terrible.

I do, however, have a problem with Oracle. They do seem intent on destroying the value of everything they touch in an attempt to squeeze a little bit more money out of the people who've come to rely on it being free and open.

by **sourmìlk** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I'm currently taking a C++ class (yes I already graduated but I've been out of college for a while so I'm taking a refresher) and ALMOST every time the professor contrasts what C++ does with what Java does, I think "Java sucks". Only one parent class, Java? Really?

Multiple inheritance is often frowned upon, even in C++. I don't think Java is a bad language, I just think that C++ is much better.

by **TheAmazingRando** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:38 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I'm currently taking a C++ class (yes I already graduated but I've been out of college for a while so I'm taking a refresher) and ALMOST every time the professor contrasts what C++ does with what Java does, I think "Java sucks". Only one parent class, Java? Really?

Yeah, but all the interfaces you want. I'd say interfaces cover most of the legitimate uses of multiple inheritance.

Arariel wrote:I have to learn it for my AP exam next month. As far as languages go, it's definitely one of my less favourite ones.

If you're still learning how to use the language, you can't really get a good impression of how good or bad it is. I hated C++ when I was learning it, but loved it when I started really working with it. Now that I've been working for 9 months on a large commercial application written in C++ there are times when Java sounds awfully refreshing.

Hating Java has been in vogue for a while, but it's mostly based on outdated criticisms. It's a perfectly good language and, IMO, far more scalable for large applications. For smaller stuff you're probably better off using C++, and for really small stuff it's often wise to forego OOP entirely and just code in straight C. Languages aren't good or bad intrinsically, their quality depends on the application.

by **Роберт** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:04 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:
Роберт wrote:I'm currently taking a C++ class (yes I already graduated but I've been out of college for a while so I'm taking a refresher) and ALMOST every time the professor contrasts what C++ does with what Java does, I think "Java sucks". Only one parent class, Java? Really?
Yeah, but all the interfaces you want. I'd say interfaces cover most of the legitimate uses of multiple inheritance.

The use a separate infrastructure for interfaces than the do for inheritance? Strange.

by **Dark567** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:56 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:Hating Java has been in vogue for a while, but it's mostly based on outdated criticisms. It's a perfectly good language and, IMO, far more scalable for large applications. For smaller stuff you're probably better off using C++, and for really small stuff it's often wise to forego OOP entirely and just code in straight C. Languages aren't good or bad intrinsically, their quality depends on the application.

Java forces coders to behave nicely with objects, unlike C++. This makes it a lot easier to manage projects, but it's tying one arm of your developers behind their backs. (Also the JVM).

The funny thing is had Google just grabbed the standard JVM and stuck it on Android, it would be in the clear. It can't though because the normal JVM is too big to run on Android, so they wrote Davlik to save memory and move to registers.

by **KnightExemplar** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:07 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:
Роберт wrote:I'm currently taking a C++ class (yes I already graduated but I've been out of college for a while so I'm taking a refresher) and ALMOST every time the professor contrasts what C++ does with what Java does, I think "Java sucks". Only one parent class, Java? Really?
Yeah, but all the interfaces you want. I'd say interfaces cover most of the legitimate uses of multiple inheritance.
The use a separate infrastructure for interfaces than the do for inheritance? Strange.

Pop Quiz Роберт: What does the following code output?

EDIT: woops... a mistake right there. Lemme fix that ... >_<

Code: Select all: class A{ int priv; public: static int refcount; // No default constructor A(int x): priv(x){ refcount++; } virtual ~A(){ refcount--; } virtual int getPriv(){ return priv; } }; int A::refcount = 0; class B: public A{ public: B(): A(1){ } }; class C: public A{ public: C(): A(2){ } }; class D: public B, C{ }; int main(){ D d; std::cout << A::refcount << std::endl; }

And second, why does this fail to compile, and how do you fix it so that it compiles as expected?

Code: Select all: int main(){ D d; std::cout << A::refcount << std::endl; std::cout << d.getPriv() << std::endl; }

Lesson: Multiple Inheritance only makes sense under certain situations. In particular... when you don't have member variables in the potential "diamond of death" base class. Java learned this lesson from C++ and elegantly solved the problem. Once you wrap your head in the above, imagine how it gets difficult when the base class uses a mutex (or opening files, mallocing / freeing memory, etc. etc. )... then it becomes important to understand the order of constructors / destructors on these things.

So which gets called first? D::B::A() or D::C::A() ?? This is important to determine the value of "getPriv" in a virtual inheritance situation. (Hint: for virtual inheritance... this is a trick question). What does the memory layout of these classes look like? (Very important if you get a coredump from a large application and need to understand it).

Interfaces are not allowed to have member variables or defined virtual functions. So this problem is entirely avoided in Java (and C#). Overall, Interfaces are a hell of a lot easier to understand than the intricacies of Virtual inheritance, diamond of death situations, etc. etc.

Mind you, I like C++ more than Java. But multiple inheritance only with Interfaces is one of the things Java did RIGHT. Especially when you consider that all classes in Java inherit from the "Object" superclass... the Diamond of Death situation would literally happen 100% of the time in Java if C++ style multiple-inheritance were introduced.

EDIT: I think this is a fitting 1024th post for me. :-)

by **MartianInvader** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:55 am UTC

I think of Java as the language I most prefer other people to have used right before I sit down to look at/work on their gigantic codebase. I figure I can do them the same favor.

by **Jplus** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:55 am UTC

I'm somewhat surprised that most of the criticism in this thread is aimed at Oracle and not at Google. To me this seems yet another example of Google being incredibly sloppy with intellectual property (especially for such a large company).

That is not to say that I sympathise with Oracle, to the contrary. This is an ugly case from both sides.

by **Griffin** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Given Oracle's history, I very much doubt google actually did anything wrong in this situation. :/

Also, I DO dislike Eclipse, but I'm aware enough to understand being forced to use an IDE I dislike to program in a language doesn't make the language bad.

Of course I program in easy mode now, so who knows if I could even handle Java anymore. (Oh Ruby, you make everything so simple...)

by **KnightExemplar** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:03 pm UTC

Jplus wrote:I'm somewhat surprised that most of the criticism in this thread is aimed at Oracle and not at Google. To me this seems yet another example of Google being incredibly sloppy with intellectual property (especially for such a large company).

That is not to say that I sympathise with Oracle, to the contrary. This is an ugly case from both sides.

Google reimplemented Java in the Dalvik VM. That means they used no Oracle code what-so-ever in their implementation.

If Oracle wins this case, then it means that independent VMs like kaffe are also illegal. Not because they used any bits of code from Java... no... because they copied part of their API. In fact, it would mean that Wine (a re-implementation of the PE execution environment) would be a copyright violation of Windows API. It would mean that Wine's DirectX environment is copyright violation just because it has the same DirectX interface as Windows.

Anyway, releasing your code as open source and then suing for patent infringement when someone else reimplements your stuff is in incredibly bad taste. And even then, the API copyright claim sounds like utter bullshit to me. Can you commit copyright violation without actually copying anything? I doubt it.

by **Dark567** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:38 pm UTC

Griffen wrote:Also, I DO dislike Eclipse, but I'm aware enough to understand being forced to use an IDE I dislike to program in a language doesn't make the language bad.

Err... You don't have to use Eclipse with Java?

KnightExemplar wrote:Google reimplemented Java in the Dalvik VM. That means they used no Oracle code what-so-ever in their implementation.

See the thing is, had Google used Oracles' JVM(which is free), they would be off the hook. Its the very fact they didn't use Oracles' code that is getting them sued.

Anyway, releasing your code as open source and then suing for patent infringement when someone else reimplements your stuff is in incredibly bad taste. And even then, the API copyright claim sounds like utter bullshit to me. Can you commit copyright violation without actually copying anything? I doubt it.

They aren't violating copyright, they are violating a patent, two very different things.

by **Dauric** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:04 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Griffen wrote:Also, I DO dislike Eclipse, but I'm aware enough to understand being forced to use an IDE I dislike to program in a language doesn't make the language bad.
Err... You don't have to use Eclipse with Java?

No, Eclipse is like Netbeans in that the IDE can compile code in different languages depending on what compiler you're telling the IDE to use.

...or if I'm misreading you then the answer may be...

Some employers may mandate what IDE you use, because they want everyone working on the same project to be using the same IDE so that when the files get passed around everyone's looking at the same screen.

by **Griffin** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:15 pm UTC

Err... You don't have to use Eclipse with Java?

Yeah, I intended that to mean that it wasn't anything about the language I disliked, just that my experience with it was while being forced to use Eclipse - that while I have an instinctive distate for Java, I don't really hate it, because it was mostly the situation on which I worked with it that turned me off. Had I the opportunity to initially approach it in another manner, I'd probably be fine with it.

I'm under the impression Eclipse is "standard" in many Universities though, and students are expected to use it.

Also, I hope Oracle goes down and HARD. If they win this ruling, its going to do a whole lot of damage to stuff I actually care about. It's bad enough they seem intent on ruining mysql and pretty much succeeded at ruining open office, now they're extending their war on open source out to things not even directly related to them.

It's pathetic. It's basically on the par with the Canadian Postal Service thing.

by **Outchanter** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:49 pm UTC

gametaku wrote:
Arariel wrote:
gametaku wrote:
Arariel wrote:Now, now, you can't expect lawsuits to run on logic now, can you?

But seriously, can we make some kind of cross-platform virtual machine like the JVM but free, and have it run C or something?

We kind of have that, it's called C, and there is also C++. If you want virtual machine C# is a standard ecma, ISO/IEC

C# is Microsoft, and proprietary I'm sure. And if it's not, this lawsuit could set a precedent.

Nope, C# is much a standard as C++, EMCAScript (javascript), and the other 19, 000+ standards (source

Microsoft's product is freer than Oracle's? Man, things have changed.

by **KnightExemplar** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:48 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Google reimplemented Java in the Dalvik VM. That means they used no Oracle code what-so-ever in their implementation.
See the thing is, had Google used Oracles' JVM(which is free), they would be off the hook. Its the very fact they didn't use Oracles' code that is getting them sued.

Anyway, releasing your code as open source and then suing for patent infringement when someone else reimplements your stuff is in incredibly bad taste. And even then, the API copyright claim sounds like utter bullshit to me. Can you commit copyright violation without actually copying anything? I doubt it.
They aren't violating copyright, they are violating a patent, two very different things.

Did you read Oracle's argument at all?

Here are Oracle's opening slides against Google.
http://twimgs.com/informationweek/1331/ ... 592541.pdf

Page 73: Oracle makes the claim that "Google Knew it needed a License for Copyrighted APIs". Copyright is central to Oracle's argument... not patent law. Which is what makes this entirely screwed up. I agree that Google should be sued for patent infringement (patents are very powerful... and clearly would cover this case) ... but to invoke copyright law over this issue is utter asshatery on the part of Oracle. EDIT: I'm not a legal expert... but I think this might be unprecedented. (lawyers please back me up here... thanks)

EDIT: In short... Oracle's argument is: "You're free to use Java, but if you use java.lang.String then fuck you cause we copyrighted that."

by **Arariel** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:14 am UTC

Err... no. Software patents were the worst idea ever. You can't patent mathematics.

by **sourmìlk** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:42 am UTC

How is software just mathematics? And more importantly, how else would you protect software developers from other people stealing what they've made?

by **Arariel** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:53 am UTC

End Software Patents wrote:Shouldn't I have legal control over my creative work?

Sure, but not necessarily by patents. After all, people write creative novels, paint original paintings, and record original compositions, but none of them may patent their output. Instead, their works are covered by copyright law. Note that copyright covers more than just the literal text that an author has written. Fans who write stories about a recognizable character like Darth Vader or Harry Potter can still be found to be violating the original authors' copyright, even though they may not use a single word from the original stories.

The key difference between patent and copyright is that a person needs to have the original work in hand and be shown to be imitating it to be found infringing a copyright, whereas independent invention is not a valid defense against claims of patent infringment. A person can easily be accused of infringing a patent that he or she has never even heard of.

Isn't mathematics unpatentable?

Absolutely. Further, most computer scientists are aware that any program could be translated to Lisp (e.g., try using the Java-to-lisp translator), meaning that any common program can be expressed as a formula in Church's lambda calculus. [Lisp is still a few steps away from Church's formulation, but those are easily surmounted with a bit more symbol-shunting.]

As Donald Knuth explains,

[It is not] possible to distinguish between "numerical" and "nonnumerical" algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information. All data are numbers, and all numbers are data. Mathematicians work much more with symbolic entities than with numbers. [Stated in testimony regarding Knuth's opposition to software patents.]

I don't see mathematicians complaining about other people stealing "what they've made" (unless it's plagiarism, which is a different matter entirely), primarily because they haven't made anything. Mathematics always was, and always will be. Therefore, it is not patentable. A software algorithm is mathematics. Mathematics is not patentable. Therefore, software algorithms are not patentable. The means of expression of the algorithm (the code itself), may be copyrightable, but clean room, reverse-engineered software is morally (and should be legally, if our laws were any bit consistent) in the clear.

by **lutzj** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:04 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I don't see mathematicians complaining about other people stealing "what they've made" (unless it's plagiarism, which is a different matter entirely), primarily because they haven't made anything. Mathematics always was, and always will be. Therefore, it is not patentable. A software algorithm is mathematics. Mathematics is not patentable. Therefore, software algorithms are not patentable. The means of expression of the algorithm (the code itself), may be copyrightable, but clean room, reverse-engineered software is morally (and should be legally, if our laws were any bit consistent) in the clear.

You could make the same argument about any invention or discovery.

by **aoeu** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:09 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:How is software just mathematics? And more importantly, how else would you protect software developers from other people stealing what they've made?

By having them not make anything before they are promised to be paid.

by **sourmìlk** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:10 am UTC

The "it's just mathematics" argument doesn't work. Anything can be expressed as just mathematics. For example, if I were to scan the information contained within a patent into a computer. What is patentable is design. I don't see why it should matter that the design is expressed mathematically. That's a (pointless) theoretical argument that fails to solve the practical problem of how people protect their inventions.

Also, I don't see why reverse engineered software is necessarily morally acceptable. It's taking another person's innovation and design and, without his permission, profiting off of it. Unless you're talking about manually reverse engineered software (which requires innovation on the part of the engineer) and not just decompiled software.

aoeu wrote:By having them not make anything before they are promised to be paid.

Why would we do this? That would kill the video game industry. And Adobe. And every piece of software sold to individuals.

by **aoeu** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:11 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
aoeu wrote:By having them not make anything before they are promised to be paid.

Why would we do this? That would kill the video game industry. And Adobe. And every piece of software sold to individuals.

Like it killed the newspaper industry?

by **Dark567** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:15 am UTC

aoeu wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
aoeu wrote:By having them not make anything before they are promised to be paid.

Why would we do this? That would kill the video game industry. And Adobe. And every piece of software sold to individuals.

Like it killed the newspaper industry?

Uh. Yes.

by **aoeu** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:27 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
aoeu wrote:By having them not make anything before they are promised to be paid.

Why would we do this? That would kill the video game industry. And Adobe. And every piece of software sold to individuals.

Like it killed the newspaper industry?
Uh. Yes.

It has shrunk alright, but you are not reading any less news because of this. It's just the effects of proper competition.

by **sourmìlk** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:36 am UTC

When did we mandate that newspapers be sold as services and not as products?

by **KnightExemplar** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:45 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I don't see mathematicians complaining about other people stealing "what they've made" (unless it's plagiarism, which is a different matter entirely), primarily because they haven't made anything. Mathematics always was, and always will be. Therefore, it is not patentable. A software algorithm is mathematics. Mathematics is not patentable. Therefore, software algorithms are not patentable. The means of expression of the algorithm (the code itself), may be copyrightable, but clean room, reverse-engineered software is morally (and should be legally, if our laws were any bit consistent) in the clear.

Software patents have their flaws. But if you're gonna tell me that MP3 isn't a significant improvement on the status quo at the time (or that H264 isn't better than OGG Thedora)... or that JPEG files and the LZW Compression algorithm aren't unique works in of themselves...

I really don't know what to say about that. These things have value, and it is appropriate to reward people and encourage engineers and scientists to create more of these.

Now... thats not necessarily saying that I agree with software patents in their current form (lol one-click shopping). But your argument is significantly more extreme than mine. You seem to be claiming that algorithms do not have any value.

You are dead wrong on that fact. Algorithms have a significant amount of value to them. Calling them "just mathematics" is rather insulting to people who come up with these sorts of things.

-----------

Also, Libnitz vs Newton. Mathematicians have been complaining about stolen works forever.

Who is online