?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Get in Twin Set, Zehn

When we see from W how little we know about color or certainty, how little we can define our enclosed capacity for thought, how then are we to have any confidence whatsoever when we try to work with concepts existing at very high levels of abstraction?  Experts appear to know how to relate to such things, but in truth, we rely upon their mere assurances in areas where nothing equivalent to proof exists.

I wonder whether the first real invention of man was something like the hammer, the knife, the wheel, or whether it might not have been the "business model?"

In an age where we now patent software, algorithms, ideas, business processes, genetic alterations, it is no longer possible to use a scale and yardstick to define a business transaction.  It is no longer even possible to directly observe a phenomenon to study it and abstract its meaning. What was the value of a dot com?  If we cannot define thought, action, existence very well, how can we possibly know how to react to someone's alleged "intellectual property?"

I always thought the greatest watershed in human existence was the use of money,  ie: the  "business model."
Businesses will exist long after humans are dead.  They will be run by the matrix-like machines of industry, maximizing profits, forever. Humans are not necessary, nor even desirable in a good business plan. We all know that now.

The courts struggling with patent requests makes good side-by-side reading with W.   I think W would agree you should not try to patent this kind of stuff.  Off course, if you can, it's very lucrative for business.

www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
anselmo_b
Feb. 26th, 2009 07:50 pm (UTC)
Hmmm, couldn't we use some Gödelian selfreferentiality to put an end to this nonsense?
Patenting an idea is an idea (on which I hereby claim intellectual ownership)
If we patent the the idea of patenting ideas and then proceed to charge astronomic license fees for the usage of our patented idea, we could deter any would be idea patentors.
dyvyd
Feb. 26th, 2009 08:08 pm (UTC)
I agree with your logic. And of course you would legally change your last name to Microsoft.

Edited at 2009-02-26 08:08 pm (UTC)
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Cydonia photo: ESA

This is the journal of David Ross
Your thoughts are welcome here

Latest Month

September 2018
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com