... for a political maneuver where you first propose something so outrageous that it's sure to get shot down, and then withdraw the proposal and advance something only slightly less outrageous? Like, let's say Senator Boughtandpaidfor introduces a bill requiring the death penalty for anyone who cracks a copy-protected CD, and when that gets the desired uproar, he says, "Oh, okay, let's compromise and make it fifty years in prison instead" -- and that bill passes because it's more "reasonable."
Which makes me wonder what Sony's got coming next.
... as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so. I mean, this goes way beyond IP law. Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?
DRM as you're thinking of it is only the tip of the "trusted computing" iceberg. The ultimate goal is to lock out cheap independent software (especially, but not limited to, F/OSS) and bring us back to the bad old days when the only way to get software for any particular task was to choose from a small number of outrageously expensive proprietary solutions.
Yep. It's a basic misunderstanding of the way these things work. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in; but as the current encryption software regulations demonstrate, this is something the US government Just Doesn't Get.
Why then is it okay for Apple to ensure a virtual monopoly, but when Microsoft does it, it's evil?
When Apple has a monopoly, let me know.
(And no, I'm not talking about the trivial observation that "Apple has a monopoly on Macs." Yes, they do; and Toyota has a monopoly on Camrys, and Coca-Cola has a monopoly on, um, Coke -- the point is that none of these companies has a monopoly in the overall market space where they compete.)
What about Google who appears intent on taking over the world, that's okay too right?
Please offer examples of ways in which Google has attempted to "take over the world" by unethical and/or illegal business practices, rather than simply competing on the basis of offering a good product.
but if they get close to ruling the world they must be abolished?
Um, pretty much... yeah, actually. The ideal situation is for nobody to be in control. If Apple ever gets the kind of power Microsoft has, they'll be just as bad; nobody really doubts this. Hell, if Torvalds or RMS or ESR had the kind of power Bill Gates has, they'd be just as bad, probably. But right now, they don't, so they're on our side. "No permanent allies, only permanent interests."
Using Classic (or for that matter, X) apps on OS X is certainly possible, and even fairly easy -- but it's just enough of a PITA to remind you that you're not using the OS's native environment. I suspect that any Apple-built Windows compatibility layer will be the same way. People will put up with it if they have to, but their preference will be for native OS X versions.
I mean, there's probably an entire team at Apple devoted to making it just right: easy enough to claim compatibility, hard enough to act as a spur for native development. And they probably have tastefully decorated offices, too.;)
I honestly think that's less true than it used to be; in the last few years I've heard a lot of non-technical people complaining about how insecure and unstable Windows is. They may not always -- in fact usually don't -- use the terminology correctly, and they're often clueless as to how to prevent problems or fix them when they occur, but they're aware of the problem... and that a lot of it is not "just the way computers are," that there are other OSs and that maybe "throw it away when it breaks and get a new one" is not really a solution they should need to resort to.
It's like with cars. First they were the toys of hobbyists, who expected to have to tinker with them all the time just to make them run. Now they're quite reliable for a very long time, as long as the user does very simple things to keep them running; even if you can't do anything more complex than filling up the gas tank yourself, you know where to go for anything else the car needs, and maintenance is pretty standardized these days. But there was a long, long intermediate period in which cars were very common if not universal, clearly consumer goods rather than the domain of specialists, but were still terribly unreliable and it it was a good idea for anyone who drove one to carry a complete toolkit and the knowledge of how to use it. And if you didn't? Well, sooner or later you'd be stranded on the side of the road. People bitched about this state of affairs, but they still drove -- but when truly reliable cars began coming on the market, there was no question about what they'd prefer.
In case the analogy isn't entirely clear, I think personal computing in general is starting to move into the third stage. Microsoft is quite firmly stuck in the second. They may very well be able to change this -- Ford did; perhaps more relevantly, IBM did when business computing underwent the same transition -- but it's going to take a real effort, and I don't see much sign of it so far.
If there is one thing I learned about school. The less you play by their rules the more successful you become.... getting As and MBAs is useless the majority of the time.
Methinks the uselessness here has more to do with "MBA" than it does with "A," if you see my point.
Intelligent Design is an alternative to the origins of life, not the continuing processes since that have shaped our world.
There's a word for this statement... hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue...
Oh yeah. It's called a "lie."
The fact is that ID makes specific claims about the process of evolution, not simply about the origin of life, and that those claims have been thoroughly debunked, but the ID'ers continue to push them anyway. Which would be fine, if they were just another loony cult pushing their loony ideas to willing loons -- but not when they try to interfere with everyone's science education.
Of course it's a lousy theory. As an article of faith, though, it's just fine; it lets believers believe what they want to believe, while not interfering with the work of scientists, regardless of their individual belief or lack thereof. Thus presenting a favorable contrast to ID, which is active interference with science.
The problem, to put it bluntly, is one of PR. If we go after ID'ers personally (which normally I'd be all in favor of, because they're jackasses) then they'll scream "persecution," and that works very well. Maintaining an aura of dignified debate unfortunately gives the false impression that ID is worthy of either dignity or debate (all it's really worthy of is laughing dismissal, a la astrology or flat-Earthism, of course) but looks better in the press.
Note that the ID'ers aren't really bothering to challenge evolution scientifically any more, because all their dumb arguments were debunked long ago. Instead they're working through the court of public opinion. Like it or not, the defenders of science have to do the same.
And you're an anonymous coward. Wow, I'm impressed.
Simply because you don't have any answers, you fucking scumbag. Hell, you haven't lifted a finger to help with anything. You have actively conspired to make things worse. We should fucking execute you, if we had any balls.
Wow. America, land of the free, the City on the Hill, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a more perfect union, of the people, by the people, for the people -- but apparently in your vision of America, we execute people because you don't like their politics. Excuse me, but are we talking about the same place?
Go to France, cocksucking piece of shit.
I think you, AC, would have fit juuust fiiine into France once upon a time... say, fifty-some years ago. The Vichy government was made of people exactly like you. Cowards, sneaks, thieves in the night, who wanted nothing more than to appease their masters.
Yeah, absolutely! And that DARPANet thing? Total bureaucratic government waste. Never went anywhere. Stupid long-haired hippie socialists, with their dumb ideas about standardized protocols and decentralized networks. Fortunately, that failed like all wasteful government programs, and we now operate on computer networks such as Compuserve, Prodigy, and GEnie developed and run by the free-market genius of efficient private enterprise.
There's Computer Science and Computer Engineering - they are different.
True.
Computer Science teaches you how to program computers, while Computer Engineering teaches you how to program computers properly.
That's a pretty bold statement, and it leaves out a lot. First of all, CS tends to be more concerned with the software side, which is inherently more mathematical -- a good CS program will teach you not only how to program, but why you should do certain things certain ways -- while CE tends to be closer to the hardware side. Both are important, and ideally any programmer should have some understanding of both, but they are fundamentally different skills with different areas of application. You probably don't want the typical CS grad writing code for embedded systems, but neither do you want the typical CE grad writing code for large-scale business and scientific apps.
Writing code for a typical desktop application probably doesn't matter, but knowing the Engineering approach is important if you are programming a fly by wire avionics system or the controller for a nuclear power plant.
Ah yes, the old "nuclear power plant" canard. Here's something you might want to consider: code that is developed on a multi-year timescale, that performs a few simple, repetitive tasks for highly critical systems, is not the be-all and end-all of programming. Modern desktop and (especially) server apps may not kill anyone if they break, but they're at least as challenging to write, because they do a great many more things and have to be written on tight deadlines... and knowing how to write such an app, and do it well, is generally more the sort of thing you learn in CS, as opposed to CE. Your arrgoant contempt for "a typical desktop application" and the people who write such applications suggests to me that you have very little experience with the conditions under which the majority of programmers work.
[wipes froth off mouth]
Anyway. You missed my point, I think, so I'll spell it out. Engineering, as a discipline, far predates the modern culture of engineering. For most of human history, engineers were people who did things by trial and error (often very dramatic error) and who basically played around with a problem until they got it right. They operated by gut feeling, by rule of thumb, by experience and raw talent. And very often, they did astonishingly good work, some of which has endured for thousands of years.
Does this mean I think modern engineering is a bad thing? Of course not. I'm very glad to know that the buildings where I live and work, the car I drive, the roads I drive it on, the chips that run my car and my computer and my TV and my microwave and damn near everything else, were all designed by people who used the careful, systematic modern approach. But there are still significant areas of technical endeavor -- and I'd say a lot of programming is included here -- in which to do good work, the intuitive, trial-and-error approach is still the best way to go.
First, you're wrong; the Ivies simply don't turn out enough graduates to fill the demand, even with the influx of new-minted grads from other countries.
Second, Columbia offers online degree programs; is that "elite" enough for you?
Um. What you're talking about, I think, is the modern culture of engineering; engineering as a discipline far predates this. CS may not look like current engineering as practiced by, say, civil engineers or mechanical engineers, but it looks a whole lot like the kind of engineering the Romans did -- and some of that was pretty good stuff.;)
Well, the reason I was sighing was because the "we built it, we own it" argument has been discredited so many times, so thoroughly, that I get tired of seeing it come up in every single discussion of the issue. I don't think it's pompous to be wearied by people repeating things that they should know simply aren't true.
Anyway.
Your question, "how is it in our interests to act like we don't own it?", is more complex and more interesting, I think. My answer is this: first, that the US has an extraordinary amount of international ill-will right now (mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with the internet, of course) and that trying to reduce that is a good idea; second, that as international trade depends increasingly on internet communications, it's in everyone's interest to see that it runs smoothly, and the closed, autocratic way ICANN does business is not conducive to this goal; and third, that it's... wait for it... the right thing to do. Most Americans, and most non-Americans, will never know or care who runs the DNS; for those of us Americans who do, we can walk around with the warm fuzzy satisfaction of knowing our country Did The Right Thing. Call me a naive idealist, but I like that feeling.
As I said in another post, this doesn't mean that I think we should immediately give it away to the first alternative that comes along. I think a centralized UN office, for instance, would be unlikely to make things any better than they are now, and might make things considerably worse. However, an independent body established by treaty like the ITU or UPU would probably be the best long-term solution, and I have the feeling that's where we'll eventually end up.
[sigh] Invention does not automatically mean control. Deal with it.
And as another poster pointed out, large portions of what we think of now as "the 'net" are not of US origin. Here's an idea: lay aside the jingoism for a moment and realize that the internet, in all its messy totality, is now something that belongs to the world, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with that fact.
While it's technically true that no one, including the US or ICANN, actually controls the internet, it is also true that ICANN, under US authority, controls an awful lot of the way the internet is generally used. You can choose not to work with them and still make use of the internet, of course, but realistically you're going to be making life very difficult for yourself by doing so. In that sense, I see what the other countries involved are complaining about.
That being said, I haven't seen any alternatives floated that seem especially preferable to the current system, although something on the ITU/UPU model seems like the most likely long-term outcome.
Attention, parent poster and anyone who agrees with him: please stop enjoying all the fruits of scientific research done by anyone, anywhere, ever. Shut off your computers, stop getting vaccinated, refuse to eat food obtained by any means other than hunting and gathering, and go off and live your nasty, brutish, and short lives in a cave somewhere while the rest of us enjoy life in the civilized world. Thank you.
However, I hear/.ers say that software should not be patentable. Why is that? What is special about software that it shouldn't quality?
Three main reasons:
1) Patents protect physical inventions. Software is not a physical invention; it is the written expression of an idea. Copyright, not patent, is the appropriate area of IP law to deal with this.
2) Most software patent fights are about algorithms, which are expressions not just of ideas, but of a specific type of ideas: mathematical formulae. Which are, by long-standing precedent, neither patentable nor (I think) copyrightable.
3) You write:
Patents are there to do two things: 1. Protect inventors who work hard on creating something new, which is sometimes easy to replicate. So that when they do succeed, sometimes after a long hard work, it is them who enjoy the fruits of their work. This is by itself a nobel cause I think. 2. To allow (after certain number of years, depending on the field of patent) for everyone to easily replicate the patent for the benefit of man kind. This is done by requiring that the patent is well documented and easy to reproduce. This is by itself also a nobel cause.
I think you mean "noble" -- we can only wish all our ideas were Nobel-worthy! -- but more to the point, that's not what patents are for; that's the mechanism by which they accomplish their purpose, which at least under US law is spelled out in the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". (I'd guess other countries have similar language in the parts of their legal codes that specify how and why patents, trademarks, and copyrights are to be granted.) And it is abundantly clear that software patents do not serve this end, and should therefore not be granted.
The *AA (there's really no point in distinguishing between the MPAA and the RIAA, or their counterparts in other countries) have done an excellent job of tying entertainment to the entertainment industry in a lot of people's minds. They can go to Congress and say, with a straight face, that if they don't get their way, then -- poof! no more music, no more movies, no more TV. Now, intelligent people can see how specious this argument is, and that music will still be recorded and movies and TV shows will still be filmed and distributed without these cartels running everything (indeed, quite possibly more and better music and movies and TV, all in all) but a lot of people really seem to buy the idea that Disney and Sony and Paramount are absolutely necessary to the very existence of mass-market entertainment.
Comparisons to the argument about how Microsoft "made PCs accessible to the everyday user" are left as an exercise to the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
... for a political maneuver where you first propose something so outrageous that it's sure to get shot down, and then withdraw the proposal and advance something only slightly less outrageous? Like, let's say Senator Boughtandpaidfor introduces a bill requiring the death penalty for anyone who cracks a copy-protected CD, and when that gets the desired uproar, he says, "Oh, okay, let's compromise and make it fifty years in prison instead" -- and that bill passes because it's more "reasonable."
Which makes me wonder what Sony's got coming next.
... as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so. I mean, this goes way beyond IP law. Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?
DRM as you're thinking of it is only the tip of the "trusted computing" iceberg. The ultimate goal is to lock out cheap independent software (especially, but not limited to, F/OSS) and bring us back to the bad old days when the only way to get software for any particular task was to choose from a small number of outrageously expensive proprietary solutions.
Yep. It's a basic misunderstanding of the way these things work. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in; but as the current encryption software regulations demonstrate, this is something the US government Just Doesn't Get.
Why then is it okay for Apple to ensure a virtual monopoly, but when Microsoft does it, it's evil?
... yeah, actually. The ideal situation is for nobody to be in control. If Apple ever gets the kind of power Microsoft has, they'll be just as bad; nobody really doubts this. Hell, if Torvalds or RMS or ESR had the kind of power Bill Gates has, they'd be just as bad, probably. But right now, they don't, so they're on our side. "No permanent allies, only permanent interests."
When Apple has a monopoly, let me know.
(And no, I'm not talking about the trivial observation that "Apple has a monopoly on Macs." Yes, they do; and Toyota has a monopoly on Camrys, and Coca-Cola has a monopoly on, um, Coke -- the point is that none of these companies has a monopoly in the overall market space where they compete.)
What about Google who appears intent on taking over the world, that's okay too right?
Please offer examples of ways in which Google has attempted to "take over the world" by unethical and/or illegal business practices, rather than simply competing on the basis of offering a good product.
but if they get close to ruling the world they must be abolished?
Um, pretty much
Using Classic (or for that matter, X) apps on OS X is certainly possible, and even fairly easy -- but it's just enough of a PITA to remind you that you're not using the OS's native environment. I suspect that any Apple-built Windows compatibility layer will be the same way. People will put up with it if they have to, but their preference will be for native OS X versions.
;)
I mean, there's probably an entire team at Apple devoted to making it just right: easy enough to claim compatibility, hard enough to act as a spur for native development. And they probably have tastefully decorated offices, too.
I honestly think that's less true than it used to be; in the last few years I've heard a lot of non-technical people complaining about how insecure and unstable Windows is. They may not always -- in fact usually don't -- use the terminology correctly, and they're often clueless as to how to prevent problems or fix them when they occur, but they're aware of the problem ... and that a lot of it is not "just the way computers are," that there are other OSs and that maybe "throw it away when it breaks and get a new one" is not really a solution they should need to resort to.
It's like with cars. First they were the toys of hobbyists, who expected to have to tinker with them all the time just to make them run. Now they're quite reliable for a very long time, as long as the user does very simple things to keep them running; even if you can't do anything more complex than filling up the gas tank yourself, you know where to go for anything else the car needs, and maintenance is pretty standardized these days. But there was a long, long intermediate period in which cars were very common if not universal, clearly consumer goods rather than the domain of specialists, but were still terribly unreliable and it it was a good idea for anyone who drove one to carry a complete toolkit and the knowledge of how to use it. And if you didn't? Well, sooner or later you'd be stranded on the side of the road. People bitched about this state of affairs, but they still drove -- but when truly reliable cars began coming on the market, there was no question about what they'd prefer.
In case the analogy isn't entirely clear, I think personal computing in general is starting to move into the third stage. Microsoft is quite firmly stuck in the second. They may very well be able to change this -- Ford did; perhaps more relevantly, IBM did when business computing underwent the same transition -- but it's going to take a real effort, and I don't see much sign of it so far.
If there is one thing I learned about school. The less you play by their rules the more successful you become. ... getting As and MBAs is useless the majority of the time.
Methinks the uselessness here has more to do with "MBA" than it does with "A," if you see my point.
Intelligent Design is an alternative to the origins of life, not the continuing processes since that have shaped our world.
... hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue ...
There's a word for this statement
Oh yeah. It's called a "lie."
The fact is that ID makes specific claims about the process of evolution, not simply about the origin of life, and that those claims have been thoroughly debunked, but the ID'ers continue to push them anyway. Which would be fine, if they were just another loony cult pushing their loony ideas to willing loons -- but not when they try to interfere with everyone's science education.
Of course it's a lousy theory. As an article of faith, though, it's just fine; it lets believers believe what they want to believe, while not interfering with the work of scientists, regardless of their individual belief or lack thereof. Thus presenting a favorable contrast to ID, which is active interference with science.
The problem, to put it bluntly, is one of PR. If we go after ID'ers personally (which normally I'd be all in favor of, because they're jackasses) then they'll scream "persecution," and that works very well. Maintaining an aura of dignified debate unfortunately gives the false impression that ID is worthy of either dignity or debate (all it's really worthy of is laughing dismissal, a la astrology or flat-Earthism, of course) but looks better in the press.
Note that the ID'ers aren't really bothering to challenge evolution scientifically any more, because all their dumb arguments were debunked long ago. Instead they're working through the court of public opinion. Like it or not, the defenders of science have to do the same.
And you're an anonymous coward. Wow, I'm impressed.
... say, fifty-some years ago. The Vichy government was made of people exactly like you. Cowards, sneaks, thieves in the night, who wanted nothing more than to appease their masters.
Simply because you don't have any answers, you fucking scumbag. Hell, you haven't lifted a finger to help with anything. You have actively conspired to make things worse. We should fucking execute you, if we had any balls.
Wow. America, land of the free, the City on the Hill, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a more perfect union, of the people, by the people, for the people -- but apparently in your vision of America, we execute people because you don't like their politics. Excuse me, but are we talking about the same place?
Go to France, cocksucking piece of shit.
I think you, AC, would have fit juuust fiiine into France once upon a time
"I used to think D&D was cool, but then I found out this gets me much more respect than my original mint condition Dungeon Master's Guide ever did!"
What genius is going to "donate" money for some software that hasn't been released yet?
Anyone who pays programmers. Think about it.
Yeah, absolutely! And that DARPANet thing? Total bureaucratic government waste. Never went anywhere. Stupid long-haired hippie socialists, with their dumb ideas about standardized protocols and decentralized networks. Fortunately, that failed like all wasteful government programs, and we now operate on computer networks such as Compuserve, Prodigy, and GEnie developed and run by the free-market genius of efficient private enterprise.
There's Computer Science and Computer Engineering - they are different.
... and knowing how to write such an app, and do it well, is generally more the sort of thing you learn in CS, as opposed to CE. Your arrgoant contempt for "a typical desktop application" and the people who write such applications suggests to me that you have very little experience with the conditions under which the majority of programmers work.
True.
Computer Science teaches you how to program computers, while Computer Engineering teaches you how to program computers properly.
That's a pretty bold statement, and it leaves out a lot. First of all, CS tends to be more concerned with the software side, which is inherently more mathematical -- a good CS program will teach you not only how to program, but why you should do certain things certain ways -- while CE tends to be closer to the hardware side. Both are important, and ideally any programmer should have some understanding of both, but they are fundamentally different skills with different areas of application. You probably don't want the typical CS grad writing code for embedded systems, but neither do you want the typical CE grad writing code for large-scale business and scientific apps.
Writing code for a typical desktop application probably doesn't matter, but knowing the Engineering approach is important if you are programming a fly by wire avionics system or the controller for a nuclear power plant.
Ah yes, the old "nuclear power plant" canard. Here's something you might want to consider: code that is developed on a multi-year timescale, that performs a few simple, repetitive tasks for highly critical systems, is not the be-all and end-all of programming. Modern desktop and (especially) server apps may not kill anyone if they break, but they're at least as challenging to write, because they do a great many more things and have to be written on tight deadlines
[wipes froth off mouth]
Anyway. You missed my point, I think, so I'll spell it out. Engineering, as a discipline, far predates the modern culture of engineering. For most of human history, engineers were people who did things by trial and error (often very dramatic error) and who basically played around with a problem until they got it right. They operated by gut feeling, by rule of thumb, by experience and raw talent. And very often, they did astonishingly good work, some of which has endured for thousands of years.
Does this mean I think modern engineering is a bad thing? Of course not. I'm very glad to know that the buildings where I live and work, the car I drive, the roads I drive it on, the chips that run my car and my computer and my TV and my microwave and damn near everything else, were all designed by people who used the careful, systematic modern approach. But there are still significant areas of technical endeavor -- and I'd say a lot of programming is included here -- in which to do good work, the intuitive, trial-and-error approach is still the best way to go.
First, you're wrong; the Ivies simply don't turn out enough graduates to fill the demand, even with the influx of new-minted grads from other countries.
Second, Columbia offers online degree programs; is that "elite" enough for you?
Um. What you're talking about, I think, is the modern culture of engineering; engineering as a discipline far predates this. CS may not look like current engineering as practiced by, say, civil engineers or mechanical engineers, but it looks a whole lot like the kind of engineering the Romans did -- and some of that was pretty good stuff. ;)
Well, the reason I was sighing was because the "we built it, we own it" argument has been discredited so many times, so thoroughly, that I get tired of seeing it come up in every single discussion of the issue. I don't think it's pompous to be wearied by people repeating things that they should know simply aren't true.
... wait for it ... the right thing to do. Most Americans, and most non-Americans, will never know or care who runs the DNS; for those of us Americans who do, we can walk around with the warm fuzzy satisfaction of knowing our country Did The Right Thing. Call me a naive idealist, but I like that feeling.
Anyway.
Your question, "how is it in our interests to act like we don't own it?", is more complex and more interesting, I think. My answer is this: first, that the US has an extraordinary amount of international ill-will right now (mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with the internet, of course) and that trying to reduce that is a good idea; second, that as international trade depends increasingly on internet communications, it's in everyone's interest to see that it runs smoothly, and the closed, autocratic way ICANN does business is not conducive to this goal; and third, that it's
As I said in another post, this doesn't mean that I think we should immediately give it away to the first alternative that comes along. I think a centralized UN office, for instance, would be unlikely to make things any better than they are now, and might make things considerably worse. However, an independent body established by treaty like the ITU or UPU would probably be the best long-term solution, and I have the feeling that's where we'll eventually end up.
[sigh] Invention does not automatically mean control. Deal with it.
And as another poster pointed out, large portions of what we think of now as "the 'net" are not of US origin. Here's an idea: lay aside the jingoism for a moment and realize that the internet, in all its messy totality, is now something that belongs to the world, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with that fact.
While it's technically true that no one, including the US or ICANN, actually controls the internet, it is also true that ICANN, under US authority, controls an awful lot of the way the internet is generally used. You can choose not to work with them and still make use of the internet, of course, but realistically you're going to be making life very difficult for yourself by doing so. In that sense, I see what the other countries involved are complaining about.
That being said, I haven't seen any alternatives floated that seem especially preferable to the current system, although something on the ITU/UPU model seems like the most likely long-term outcome.
Attention, parent poster and anyone who agrees with him: please stop enjoying all the fruits of scientific research done by anyone, anywhere, ever. Shut off your computers, stop getting vaccinated, refuse to eat food obtained by any means other than hunting and gathering, and go off and live your nasty, brutish, and short lives in a cave somewhere while the rest of us enjoy life in the civilized world. Thank you.
However, I hear /.ers say that software should not be patentable. Why is that? What is special about software that it shouldn't quality?
Three main reasons:
1) Patents protect physical inventions. Software is not a physical invention; it is the written expression of an idea. Copyright, not patent, is the appropriate area of IP law to deal with this.
2) Most software patent fights are about algorithms, which are expressions not just of ideas, but of a specific type of ideas: mathematical formulae. Which are, by long-standing precedent, neither patentable nor (I think) copyrightable.
3) You write:
Patents are there to do two things:
1. Protect inventors who work hard on creating something new, which is sometimes easy to replicate. So that when they do succeed, sometimes after a long hard work, it is them who enjoy the fruits of their work. This is by itself a nobel cause I think.
2. To allow (after certain number of years, depending on the field of patent) for everyone to easily replicate the patent for the benefit of man kind. This is done by requiring that the patent is well documented and easy to reproduce. This is by itself also a nobel cause.
I think you mean "noble" -- we can only wish all our ideas were Nobel-worthy! -- but more to the point, that's not what patents are for; that's the mechanism by which they accomplish their purpose, which at least under US law is spelled out in the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". (I'd guess other countries have similar language in the parts of their legal codes that specify how and why patents, trademarks, and copyrights are to be granted.) And it is abundantly clear that software patents do not serve this end, and should therefore not be granted.
The *AA (there's really no point in distinguishing between the MPAA and the RIAA, or their counterparts in other countries) have done an excellent job of tying entertainment to the entertainment industry in a lot of people's minds. They can go to Congress and say, with a straight face, that if they don't get their way, then -- poof! no more music, no more movies, no more TV. Now, intelligent people can see how specious this argument is, and that music will still be recorded and movies and TV shows will still be filmed and distributed without these cartels running everything (indeed, quite possibly more and better music and movies and TV, all in all) but a lot of people really seem to buy the idea that Disney and Sony and Paramount are absolutely necessary to the very existence of mass-market entertainment.
Comparisons to the argument about how Microsoft "made PCs accessible to the everyday user" are left as an exercise to the reader.
American spelling is "ass," British spelling is "arse." Both are perfectly good words for the place where the movie industry's head is lodged.