advocating warez

bimshwel · Post by **bimshwel** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:52 am

I think you're just upset that this pointless ineffective argument session went on for so long and no one told you.

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:20 am

randomlag wrote:If a company invests a huge amount of time/money on developing a concept or product and there is nothing to keep someone else from stealing it, why should a company invest same?

Software patents do not cover computer programs, they cover single algorithms and methods. Implementations of algorithms can be copyrighted, and that's great. But the algorithms themselves should never be patentable or even copyrightable.

Why? Algorithms aren't inventions, they are discoveries. Imagine where we'd be today if Newton had patented his formulas for physics and prohibited anyone else from using them? Today we are seeing patents on methods that are simpler than high school algebra. Check this: http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html

Patents are abhorrently bad for competition. A market with software patents is the very opposite of a free market. When companies are able to patent methods, they gain a monopolistic status as no one will be allowed to make a competing product. This does not happen if only regular copyright is provided - the company can then copyright their product, but competitors are allowed to make competing products that basically do the same thing as long as it is their own creation.

Oh, and it's not exactly some random person's opinion that software patents are bad. Do a google search for them and see how many pages you have to go through before you find a positive site. Not to mention, the vast majority of professors in information technology and related science are opposed to software patents.

Hirogen2 · Post by **Hirogen2** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:22 am

OMG randomlag supports software patents!

Nanami · Post by **Nanami** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:35 am

Site Fredrik Posted wrote:Generation of random numbers by feeding the output of one random number generator into the input of another random number generator. [#5,251,165].

Wow, I thought of doing that a while back but it's a good thing I didn't!

That's just [censored word], everyone has to agree on that... I seriously can't believe that's pantented. That's so broad it's crazy.

WolfCub · Post by **WolfCub** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:29 pm

Most of the software I use is open source, so I have no need to warez. If you are warezing something, look for a free alternative instead of breaking the law. Instead of warezing Windows, get Linux, same goes for almost every piece of commercial software. There is always a free alternative to proprietary software which is open to everyone. I myself believe that software should be free, and support should be where the developers get their money. Most Linux distros have a free download and then you pay for support, which is better than MS does where they charge $300 for their buggy, insecure OS and then even more for support.

randomlag · Post by **randomlag** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:54 pm

Did you look up the word I gave?

Fredrik wrote:Software patents do not cover computer programs, they cover single algorithms and methods. Implementations of algorithms can be copyrighted, and that's great. But the algorithms themselves should never be patentable or even copyrightable.

Where did I say it covered computer programs per se? [In fact I said the opposite] What about the "implementation" of a method to develop a new drug? No different at all. You and others want to confuse intangible (read mind stuff) with tangible products. That's why you said it wasn't stealing. In the same way that statement was flawed, so is this one. Or perhaps you would still like to justify using -accepted- standards why it's not stealing?

Why? Algorithms aren't inventions, they are discoveries.

More sophistry. Columbus "discovered" America. Is mathematics a "discovery"? The items we are concerned with are all creations of the "mind". This argument is similar to "science" where you want to take the grossly inadequate generalization and apply it contrary to all accepted academic standards. Algorithms are NOT discoveries otherwise you could walk in your back yard and "discover" them.

Similarly I never said that all software patents are valid - again read carefully. OTOH to make a claim that NO software patents should be issued is ridiculous. It's a difficult area that will take time. Mainly because lawyers are not of a "software" mind set.

Stating things that you can't prove or things that are obvious are typical subterfuge elements in arguments. Neither are convincing arguments. One of those links had a pretend math model (similar to economics) that proves nothing one way or the other. You can model anything you like, but remember math is imaginary, so all you end up proving is an imaginary construct, not a fact. The number of links is hardly a convincing argument. You'll find MANY links that support the theory that the universe is 5000 years old. And you'll find many degreed university type people who write the articles - amazing but true

Mixing truths and untruths is the way almost all arguments get very confused and the way to lead people to think you have some kind of valid point. The key is that once you introduce an untruth, then the rest of the argument is invalid. This is a simple concept in logic and is the most common way all debates are flawed. That includes the links you gave. You want to believe everything you read. I question everything I read. Remember, it's written by people who put their pants one leg at a time.

It's true that bad things can happen, but it's also true that good things can happen from copyright and patent protection. Our world is not predictable. As I said before, economics is not a science (natural of course) and there's no way in hell you'll be able to prove any of your assertions. "Free" market is an imaginary construct. Very few big companies operate in a free market per se - government control (esp in Europe) is fierce - the opposite of a free market.

Patents EXPIRE - so eventually competitors arise. This is a pretty good compromise. In the boating world, Volvo had a patent on the most obvious of devices - a universal joint from the engine to the outdrive. Remember a patent does not have to be something new, just a new application of an existing device is legit. Anyway, when the patent expired, everyone started doing the same thing. Same thing happened with automatic transmissions - some guy "patented" a whole bunch of ways to do it. Good for him, he "thought" of it. The list of common devices is very long - but they all expire.

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:40 pm

Where did I say it covered computer programs per se?

I never said you did.

Why? Algorithms aren't inventions, they are discoveries.
More sophistry. Columbus "discovered" America.

...

Is mathematics a "discovery"?

Yes. Advancements in mathematics are called discoveries, not "inventions".

The items we are concerned with are all creations of the "mind".

Mathematical logic isn't a creation, it's universally real just as well as sticks and stones are. Algorithms are extensions to this logic. They are discovered as logic is explored, by human minds. They are not made up.

Similarly I never said that all software patents are valid - again read carefully. OTOH to make a claim that NO software patents should be issued is ridiculous. It's a difficult area that will take time. Mainly because lawyers are not of a "software" mind set.

The problem is that most people still haven't realized that their traditional view of the world is outdated when it comes to these matters.

Stating things that you can't prove or things that are obvious are typical subterfuge elements in arguments.

I'm sure you're experienced.

You can model anything you like, but remember math is imaginary, so all you end up proving is an imaginary construct, not a fact.

This alone proves what a big f* troll you are. Indeed, you can't prove anything since the concept of a proof is imaginary.

The number of links is hardly a convincing argument. You'll find MANY links that support the theory that the universe is 5000 years old. And you'll find many degreed university type people who write the articles - amazing but true

I think consensus among the majority of the people who have knowledge in a field is enough. Besides, you'll find that the most of the people who are pro software patents are the business people - who have no real interest in innovation, while the overwhelming lot of the programmers - who are the innovators, oppose software patents.

Mixing truths and untruths is the way almost all arguments get very confused and the way to lead people to think you have some kind of valid point. The key is that once you introduce an untruth, then the rest of the argument is invalid. This is a simple concept in logic and is the most common way all debates are flawed. That includes the links you gave. You want to believe everything you read. I question everything I read. Remember, it's written by people who put their pants one leg at a time.

I question everything I read, including arguments for things I agree with. Jesus Christ, why do I even have to say this, stop trolling damn it.

It's true that bad things can happen, but it's also true that good things can happen from copyright and patent protection.

Like I've said, copyright is already there and it's working.

Our world is not predictable. As I said before, economics is not a science (natural of course) and there's no way in hell you'll be able to prove any of your assertions.

Patents ARE being used anti-competitively, already. Big corporations collect patents, then sue small companies for infringement. Small companies can't afford the legal process so they have to pay for licenes or drop the process.

And you know who's going to take an even bigger hit than small companies? Open source developers. With NO money, there won't even be fights. It doesn't matter if developers infringe unknowingly, they'll have their projects shut down anyway.

"Free" market is an imaginary construct. Very few big companies operate in a free market per se - government control (esp in Europe) is fierce - the opposite of a free market.

Something to fight, don't you think?

Patents EXPIRE - so eventually competitors arise. This is a pretty good compromise.

And expiration time is, what, 20 years? Look at the pace of progress in software, it never takes more than a few years at most for something new, no matter how innovative and amazing at its introduction, to become non-special. The idea that a company should have the exclusive right to a concept during a period of time in which others could have worked to enhance it is what's truly ridiculous.

Post by **Kappes Buur** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:35 pm

Well, I must agree with RandomLag's dissertations on copyrights and patents.

Fredrik wrote:.. The idea that a company should have the exclusive right to a concept during a period of time in which others could have worked to enhance it is what's truly ridiculous.

That is one heck of a skewed view.

The reason that patents were introduced, is the fact to ensure the survival of the inventor in the market place. So what, if the patent lasts for 20 years. There stands nothing in the way to improve on a given invention by other than the inventor.

If somebody would build on the original, patented invention, it is quite right that the original inventor should be paid a royalty. If you want some high profile cases, see RDRAM vs DDRAM, NVIDIA vs 3Dfx, etc. 3Dfx, of course, paid a very steep price indeed for patent infringement.

In the world of software development this applies as well. Numerous software companies were swallowed up by other software developers because of the patent issue.

But, then again, I am just a layperson at this all.

Fredrik · Post by **Fredrik** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:47 pm

Kappes Buur wrote:The reason that patents were introduced, is the fact to ensure the survival of the inventor in the market place. So what, if the patent lasts for 20 years. There stands nothing in the way to improve on a given invention by other than the inventor.

20 is a hell of a long time. And if you take a look at reality, you'll see that a lot of patent holders out there use the patents to collect money and NEVER to innovate them. Besides, the process of XOR'ing two images against each other isn't an invention.

randomlag · Post by **randomlag** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:55 pm

Since you made the following statement, it's becoming clear this is most likely pointless

Mathematical logic isn't a creation, it's universally real just as well as sticks and stones are. Algorithms are extensions to this logic. They are discovered as logic is explored, by human minds. They are not made up.

LOL - Either you can accept some new information or you can stick to false information. Math is complete make believe (and within that make believe proofs are absolute), algorithms are complete make believe. Here's the acid test: Can you EAT an algorithm?

I find the history of man interesting in that even though they had "sticks and stones", not a single one of them could tell you how many sticks or stones he had in his hand. Simple adding was completely unknown. In the middle ages you were considered a very educated person if you could "add". Multiplication - you are a genius

The concept of "zero" itself is fascinating. The problem is we are so immersed in our culture that we think that all we learn must have always been so and is "real". The truth is that is not so. Go ahead and do some research to "discover" this for yourself.

Getting sarcastic is juvenile. I'm more experienced than you because I'm much older than you -and- have been through an IPO, started a company, do all the bull shit tax stuff, lawsuits, have to learn the legal rules and so forth. IOW, as I've mentioned before, experience teaches you a lot of things. One of which is that legal speak is not the same as layman speak.

Let's calm down and think how you know what you know now:

1. You went to school
2. You gained some experience
3. There's a lot more where 1 and 2 came from.

I question everything I read, including arguments for things I agree with. Jesus Christ, why do I even have to say this, stop trolling damn it.

Fred, I have just as much right to post here as you do. Do I ACCUSE YOU OF TROLLING? So STFU if you don't want counter arguments. Or are you trolling? See Fred that was a pretty dumb sentence when you are doing exactly the same.

Like I've said, copyright is already there and it's working.

HOW is it working vs patents not working? Geez, you can't just b.s. here.

Patents ARE being used anti-competitively, already.

BFD. Cry me a river. That's the WHOLE IDEA behind patents. And that's the way the world turns. Legal maneuvering is always there regardless of patents. It's always been big vs small. Learn it now and be ahead of the game.

My point about "free" market is that there is no such thing (you used this construct). Since there is no such thing, it's not valid to argue from that POV (except as an abstract). A totally free market actually goes against what you conceive of anyway. Remember, the big get bigger, so in a totally free market (with no anti-monopoly laws) you would not be very happy. Be careful what you wish for. There's a reason all these laws developed. Sure they may go too much 1 way and then go back - that's the nature of history.

Patents cost a fair amount of money to obtain. As with all new events, it takes time for change. If you were the one with a patent that you spend $500k developing and then $20k to apply, I think we'd hear another tune. Again be careful of what you wish for.

(a) The term invention means invention or discovery.
(b) The term process means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Ultraviolet · Post by **Ultraviolet** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:20 pm

But Jack, "ending is better than mending!"

Ultraviolet · Post by **Ultraviolet** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:22 pm

JESUS FUCK A WHOLE LOT OF POSTS SUDDENLY APPEARED DURING THE TIME IT TOOK ME TO TYPE THAT ONE LITTLE LINE

Cyb · Post by **Cyb** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:23 pm

I'm not getting involved with the patents discussion, but I agree with randomlag about math and algorithms and logic being inventions and not a discoveries. nobody suddenly found out about math one day, stumbling across it, it's a very human invention which was made for the very purposes of describing amounts of things (I guess that would only be numbers). numbers and all the kinds of math only exist because we required them to explain things we couldn't figure out (I don't want to get into it, but I believe a similar concept is behind religion and 'god', for instance what is sqrt(-1), it's 'i', why? because.). the major problem of course is that nobody has ever lived a single second of their life without numbers or math, so it's not possible to 'ungrasp' the concept of it, so it seems more like something that was always there, like breathing or the beating of your heart. still it's very interesting, and the human need to explain everything is one of the things that makes us great I think (though it can also get annoying when there is no answer). anyways, continue the argumental discussion thingy, kthx!

Ultraviolet · Post by **Ultraviolet** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:10 pm

Math belongs to everyone is what I think Fredrik was trying to say. It isn't something one can claim for one's self.

Biff · Post by **Biff** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:24 pm

Yeah! The fact that we invented math and literally developed how to apply it to hardware and software is the reason we're here talking about it. Fast moving times...