|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
Your reply is a slightly sophisticated form of Straw Man argument, although not
sophisticated enough to escape detection as such. I hope that you didn't do
this on purpose. ;-)
The parent did not say that "structure", "sequence" and
"organization" are words that are not recognized by the software
industry, individually. It is the combination of the three in the way that was
used by both legal teams and by the judge that is completely outside of any
current frame of reference in computing today. This is true in all of its
domains, which includes theoretical Computer Science, professional Software
Engineering, and simple enthusiast or hobby programming.
The lawyers have pulled this concept of SSO as a unit of discourse (not the
individual words) out of thin air, and in so doing have manufactured a frame of
reference for their legal discussions which has no accepted basis in the
industry at all.
I'm strongly reminded of Richard Feynman's "cargo cult science" by
analogy here. The lawyers in this case are like the natives lighting the
airstrip beacons and thinking that this summons the aircraft. Just because you
put three good computing words together does not create a valid composite
concept in the subject.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|