advocating warez

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.

Postby randomlag » Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:53 am

Jim wrote: That's exactly what I was saying! Do you find that satisfactory (really, I'm wondering)?
Well maybe in your mind, but that's not what you said. Yes I find that satisfactory in the same way that I find it satisfactory to hire accountants to do my taxes. Life's a bitch :o

Companies are sued all the time for 1000's of things. MS is a mailman bites dog story - so it gets the press. They violated a patent and they can choose the remedy. That's the problem here - not realizing that this is going on constantly and not just about patents and copyrights. Do I like it? Hell no, but as I said, you'd have to rewrite the world legal system to make "sense" and that's not going to happen soon (or when hell freezes over).

That this is a big problem for small companies underscores a bigger issue - that lawsuits are a big problem in general for small companies, not just the topic here. This is from personal experience. Believe it or not, someone can sue you on the most ridiculous grounds and you HAVE to defend yourself or face the consequences. If you are scared now, wait till you see the big picture unfold if you ever get into business issues.

But you have failed to demonstrate how "hardware" inventions should not be patented? Why should a company not be rewarded for spending a huge amount of money to develop software concepts in the same way that they spend money for hardware concepts? (before you answer, see copyright difference below). What benefit is that to business? Would the current business model still work? Is speed of change a good or bad thing for business? These are ALL issues that have to be thought about in great detail BEFORE you ask for change.

As when Fred asked for "free enterprise", having true free enterprise would result in total domination by a few big companies - yet people still want it because they don't understand the impacts of what they wish for. I admit to past ignorance myself (and still learning) - being trained in science and math tends to do that - even found business stuff disgustingly stupid. Then I started a business and slowly learned how stupid I was :oops: Unlike the nice flow of numbers, real life follows an extremely difficult line to follow or control - contrary to all the "rules" we expected to exist :(
The point that I was making about patents being an artificial construct is that this makes them different from physical property.
Obviously- it's the very definition of "artificial" in this context. And that's why I made the same notation early on. You are double defining here with no benefit to the argument.

However, there's confusion by mixing physical property with the concept of "invention". Invention is also an artificial construct, yet can be embodied in a physical form. How do you tell? Easy, can you find a universal joint in the woods? So how exactly do you separate the various kinds of inventions that are artificial constructs that just happen to be able to take a physical form? Even math (a total artificial construct) is used every day from engineering to the checkout stand in a "physical" form.

This is the crux of the question I've posed over and over. It's extremely difficult to codify laws when you realize that general words flow over into other areas whether you want them to or not. Is a computer program an extension of hardware in the same way that a crane is an extension of mechanical engineering? Reading patent law gives you an idea.
You are very posessive of ideas.
That's a strange comment and not necessary to say since everyone is possessive of their ideas (isn't that's exactly what you are doing right now?). I'm tossing out direct challenges to "ideas" presented here and attempting to explain why it's not so simple as it appears. Please explain how business would benefit!
I am simply suggesting that the laws allowing and protecting them should only be continued so long as "the common good" of society is served by their existance. (What is "the common good"? Perhaps the rate of useful invention and its availability is a good place to start in this case).
And you've just hit the problem - the world of legal speak. What is "good" is actually a catch-22. In our society what is good for business can be good for "society" although that isn't obvious unless one get's into business mode. What is "rate"? What is "availability"? Do you really want to tie up the courts with more constant barrages with hard to define concepts? For example, what is "indecent" or what is "pornographic"? The latter 2 have cost us at least 100's of millions of tax payer dollars, yet no clear answer exists and the lawsuits go on and on.
The reason that software is different from other areas is that other patentable things cannot also enjoy a copyright.
Does this mean anything? You are assuming that they both offer the same protection - they do not. Do you think there's any ambiguitity in the following:
US copyright office wrote:Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Basically, patents give much stronger legal leverage (read money) vs copyrights and that's why they are pursued much more vigorously both in obtaining them and in enforcement.
Software copyrights actually serve a very similar purpose to patents.
Not exactly a "very" similar purpose. The best is that they are related, but they differ in the same way that liquid nitrogen is different from liquid carbon dioxide for cooling purposes. Copyright law applies by default to anything one creates. For example, this post is defacto copyrighted. Is that the same purpose as a patent? Can I economically (meaning it's worth my time) sue you for damages if you take my post and use it somewhere else without asking me? (technically you can't.)

The legal remedies available for patents vs copyright infringements are different. Just look them up.
Randomlag, the thing that I was really referring to was the arrogant way in which you suggest that people that disagree with your opinion are do not know how to properly make a point. You are by extension questioning everyone's intelligence, which is certainly a personal attack.
B.S. (wouldn't say that but you persist in false accusations).

Showing how trivial truths are used to conclude something that is pure speculation is a simple rule of logic. When one doesn't know something and someone else explains it, that is called education/learning/experience and has nothing to do with one's intelligence - another false deduction. For example, a person does not know how to take a square root and I explain it. Does that mean he's stupid or just didn't learn how to do it? Does it mean I was insulting him when I explained it? The answers are obvious.

Many people use those tactics constantly not realizing (or caring) that the flow doesn't follow. It's the underpinning of politics 8-)

That you chose to take it personally (even though it was a quote from a link), seemed unnecessary. Came across more as a grudge than a meaningful attempt at communication (as it just did again).

If you want to criticize my reasoning, you need to explain why what I said it not true. (btw, it wasn't Randy's reasoning - he was quoting a link). One cannot jump nilly willy from point A to point B without regard for valid links and expect to make progress. The only medicine I tasted is that people are quick to use personal attacks when (as I see it) rules of validity are ignored. As I said somewhere, I was (emphasize was) a mathematician, but some learning never goes away - so these flaws stick out like a sore thumb :D
User avatar
randomlag
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Postby Kappes Buur » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:28 am

This article seems rather timely:

Patent Riots of 2003
By John C. Dvorak
September 2, 2003
User avatar
Kappes Buur
 
 
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby randomlag » Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:37 am

I enjoy John Dvorak's articles - probably the only thing I read each month in PCMAG. Since he's a journalist that means he's in the business of getting attention (meaning sales of the mag via his articles). I'm guessing he sometimes says stuff just to get a reaction. And sometimes he's just out of his league. I've debated him a few times on the PC Mag forum when I've been bored :lol:

For example, before Windows became dominant, he said this (paraphrased) about multi-tasking (in the OS sense):

"I can't see any use for being able to jump from one program to another without closing them".

This was at a time when multi-tasking was well established on main-frames, yet he couldn't jump the bridge to PCs to see how they could benefit a single user. Don't think he was just janking chains (this was before the net anyway).

The article points out the ridiculous nature of some software patents and some who promote the ridiculous. And it again points out the obvious advantage of large over small. I don't expect the latter to change unless we want to give up any semblance of capitalism as we know it - see communism for the end result of that concept :wink:

None of this justifies dumping ALL patents though. It's all about the ebb and flow of time - there will be a time when the people who approve these things get up to speed - or maybe I'm just being wishful here :roll: My argument here is that getting one's patent wish may not end up doing what people think it will do. Current business health and society health are intertwined. You can't change one without affecting the other. Do we want more socialism/government control? Maybe :idea:
User avatar
randomlag
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Princess Viscra Maelstrom and 3 guests