Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 03:42 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 03:45 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 03:57 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:01 PM EST |
or perhaps package, or procedure, or...
"A ... software" doesn't parse. Software not being a
countable, as it were.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:04 PM EST |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:09 PM EST |
Suggestion:
"In the current environment, each of these ideas may be the
subject matter of one or more patents."
It might be good to point out that what we are offering is a
correction to the status quo. (Each simple idea should _not_
be the subject matter of one or more patents.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:13 PM EST |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:14 PM EST |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:21 PM EST |
"Of what use is it for a programmer to read software
patents?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:24 PM EST |
"and he is unlikely to learn" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:27 PM EST |
(The other footnotes have closing periods, for consistency
would recommend the same for footnotes 1 and 2..)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:59 AM EST |
In the title of the article, shocked this hasn't been pointed out yet. :)
MDT (Not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 01:22 AM EST |
If we look at the underlying principles of mathematics which are at
the foundations of computer science the functions of software are described with
mathematical functions.
This sentance will probably read more
easily if the subordinate clause "which are at the foundations of computer
science" is bracketed with commas.
As so:
If we look at
the underlying principles of mathematics, which are at the foundations of
computer science, the functions of software are described with mathematical
functions.
Dashes, semi-colons, or parenthesis in the same
locations would also be reasonable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 01:44 PM EST |
"There is another problem with functional claiming that Lemley has not
identified." (So, presumably, because this says "another", we're
talking about problem #2.)
"And there is still another problem with functional claiming."
(Presumably, problem #3.)
"There is a third problem with functional claiming..." But this is
actually the fourth problem that we are talking about.
MSS2
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|