Very interesting article in New Yorker today. Long, but interesting read – I recommend reading to the end – the second last section is worth reaching. There are many interesting observations along the way too.

Are the good software developers more like scientists or more like artists? What is making one 100 times more productive than others?

When finishing my PhD thesis, even though I have not plagiarised anything, I have felt extremely uneasy assuring the reviewer that my work is new and unique – with probability almost 1 it isn’t. None of the PhD thesis is. We just cannot really come up with anything new – it is algorithmically not possible.

In reply to the article Carl has posted me with an article about pattern squatting. It makes an interesting read for any small software house. BTW, I am strong believer in open source software model myself, and I do not think any patent system promotes innovation – just to the contrary. How come, any system, that prevents me inventing and using my invention, be said to promote innovation?

One response to “Artistic vs. Scientific inventions.”

  1. Nicolas says:

    Have you heard about any equation or mathematical theorem that has been “patented”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *