Since I have been thinking about the dimensionality of Einstein’s universe and the associations within the six interrogatives, it has led me to wonder about how the two fit together. I have expressed it in the above diagram. The association types are the rows and the interrogatives the columns. We immediately have four dimensions for each interrogative. Food for thought as I think about my current reading on network theory.
This hearkens back to a model I did in June 2007:
You can see by using an association table for each interrogative this model provides for all the possible associations within the ontology. However, I do not think this model is complete. I’ll discuss that a bit later.
Court limits ‘business method’ patents
Oct 30, 3:45 PM (ET)
BY DANIEL WAGNER
WASHINGTON (AP) – A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled against a man trying to patent a business idea, a decision with far-ranging implications for the financial services and high-tech industries, which have major players on both sides of the issue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Bernard Bilski, who wanted to patent a method for hedging against weather-related effects on businesses. Because his process did not involve a particular machine and did not physically transform anything, the court said, the process was not eligible for a patent.
Relying heavily on 1970s-era U.S. Supreme Court decisions that established the “machine-or-transformation test,” Chief Judge Paul Michel wrote for a nine-judge majority that Bilski’s patent application did not meet this definition of “process” under patent law.
The court affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of Bilski’s patent, saying the agency’s interpretation of the “process” was correct.
Denying the patent “eliminates a whole class of innovations from protection – business methods that rely on humans for execution,” Accenture wrote in a fact sheet arguing for reversal of the patent office’s decision.
But Bank of America Corp. (BAC) (BAC), Wachovia Corp. (WB) (WB) and a host of other companies argued in court briefs that allowing abstract ideas to be patented “hinders rather than promotes innovation.”
Companies that rely on computer-related patents could take heart from the court’s statement that processing data counts as “transformation,” making them patent-eligible. But the court punted on the question of whether mentioning a computer is enough to argue that a process involves a machine.
Two judges filed long dissents, arguing the decision could disrupt industries operating with patents that could be affected by the decision.
It would be nice to see India and China develop their own framework for rational, limited property rights. The West’s property system is arcane and outmoded. It reflects a patchwork ontology and is abusing the rights of the individual by corporate interests to the point of irrelevance.
There has to be a new method based on systems or networks of classification of property. One that pulls the foot out of the cow pie. I say clear the ground in the East and build a new independent property institution. Then phase it in globally.
I’m struggling with what the new ontology for property should be. Are North Americans even the one’s who should reach the conclusion?
The United States Constitution was crafted before the United States corporation–legal slight of hand performed during the conclusion of the United States Civil War–existed. Are we truly equipped philosophically and conceptually for individual rights, corporate rights and digital systems property?
Tonight I broke out the dictionary and began examining my Latin roots. Spurred on by the term “datum” I decided to go all the way and produce an internally consistent set of terminology for a system:
I have a confession to make. I abused the Latin a bit.
I recently learned that to enable philosophers of all languages to exchange their work Latin is used as the standard. In working to refine my understanding of system concepts I can see the rationale behind using a language with a thoroughly refined vocabulary and grammar. Dead languages do have utility.
I came up with this representation of de Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats” and Zachman’s “Framework Focuses” early in this blog’s lifetime. I am hoping I have achieved the final form as we see it here. The major change is the switch between the last two rows and the switch between the last two columns. I consider this structure a fixed hierarchy both vertically and horizontally.
As part of my reflection upon this I created a table to think about the various hexads I’ve encountered:
One thing I realize from this exercise is that events are the definitions of the system. If you do not define an event you will never observe it. In other words, you cannot see what you are not looking for. Nodes are the instances of the system and provide the affordances the outside world can manipulate.
You can also see here that I have categorized cause, energy and time as “logical” and observer, mass and space as “physical”. I am just playing here, but what are the potential implications? Could cause, energy and time be simply logical constructs? Could observer, mass and space be the only truly physical constructs?