Or you could argue that the value of the media should be split equally amongst each produced copy...
This is exactly what I'm arguing for, but recognizing that the number of sales is generally unknown at the time the pricing is set, and almost definitely unknown at the time the initial effort is put forth.
I doubt it's possible for Duke Nukem Forever to ever sell enough copies to make up for the amount of effort that went into making (and remaking, and redesigning, and remaking) it. Of course, 15 years ago, that seemed entirely likely, and maybe even with a hefty profit because consumers would (in total) value the game more than the total agreed value of the programmers' effort making it.
To declare that trivially produced copies hold value would in effect be to declare that the work has infinite value
I can declare that with anything, easily copied or not. I keep a rock on my back porch. It's unique, and I exerted effort to find and recover it. I value that effort at $1,000,000, because I can. Of course, nobody else will value it that high, so nobody will purchase it from me. Similarly, I can produce an infinite number of copies of my software, but eventually I will run out of people who will buy the copies, because they value it less than I do. Eventually, the valuation of each copy (as decided by the buyers) approaches zero, establishing an upper limit on society's valuation of my software.
Of course, that upper limit may be many times higher than what I paid someone else for the education, equipment, marketing, and distribution of those copies, so I could make a significant profit. For producing something that society values that highly, I see nothing wrong with that.
If the person who got a copy free was going to buy it in the first place, and if them getting it doesn't result in someone else purchasing it who wouldn't have otherwise, then sure it is a lost sale.
That's not their decision to make, though. The author, being the one who exerted the effort, chooses the value of his work. A buyer can either accept the valuation and receive the results of the effort, reject the deal, or suggest a different value that the buyer may agree to.
At no point, however, is it fair for the buyer to unilaterally decide to have the results of the effort without paying in return. That infringes the producer's freedom to choose the value for his work. A geologist being told that the expedition to a tropical island to find a new oil field was really a vacation, so he won't be paid, is unfair in the same manner. The person doing the work is denied the ability to bargain.
Sure it'd waste disk space and be rather stupid to do, but I just did it for free
If you value your effort that little, that's your right. Personally, as an author of a few FOSS programs, I like that, but you do not have the right to force that valuation on someone else.
Unless someone values you running in circles with rocks enough to expend their own effort in some other way (like earning money with which to pay you). Maybe you're supposed to be testing the durability of flooring under heavy load, but I digress.
Exerting effort does not inherently require that someone else value it, but all value is derived (either directly or indirectly) from the exertion of effort. However, as a society we have generally held that all effort is valued when it benefits someone else. The exception to this rule is slavery, where a person's effort benefits someone else, but the person exerting the effort does not have the freedom to choose the value of their work.
...effort does not equate to value). Someone is upset when they don't get credit, which is different than having valued assets removed from their possession.
So tell me, when you were born into this world, what valued assets did you have of your own? Not your family's, mind you, but your own? Apart from things you've put forth effort to produce, or put forth effort to earn the money to pay others to produce, what do you now possess that is of value?
Everything of value in this world is valued because of the human effort it took to produce it. Metals must be pulled from the Earth, ores must be smelted, and products must be assembled. Information must be conceived, clarified, and codified.
I have no moral responsibility to give credit, so I don't feel guilt.
I understand this to mean "I value physical effort infinitely more than mental effort". If I hold the exact opposite definition, you wouldn't mind mind being my slave, would you? I promise you'll only be doing worthless physical labor...
The effort spent to create the software can no longer be sold to someone else, either.
Instead, the author has worked out a plan for the pricing structure necessary to be fairly (in his or her mind) compensated for the time and effort, and making unlicensed copies is effectively removing a unit of income from that plan. The author could rebuild the plan to accommodate the lost payment, but now has to account for a smaller market, as well. Sure, the author can copy it fifteen billion times, but likewise a jeweler can spend his life making fifteen billion pieces to hand out to every cheap bastard who wants one.
Exactly... It's not like anybody had to put effort into making those variables do anything, or draw the pictures that appear when the variable holds a particular value, or work out and balance the mechanics of a game that the variables influence. These variables are just information in a storage system, so therefore must be completely detached from any value or human effort whatsoever.
Similarly, the energy that grew my lunch came from the sun, which gives energy away for free, so it's perfectly legal and right for me to dine-and-dash, right?
Please. This is supposed to be a post-race society, where they are simply helicopters, and it doesn't matter what color they are on the outside, or how big their rotors are, or whether they have sliding or swinging doors, or whether they like to mate with other helicopters of the same model or not... what matters is that they are all helicopters, valuable in their own right, and all equally capable of coming after you.
The notion of using a touch-sensitive surface to control an electronic device isn't patentable. The specific type of device, paired with the specific type of screen, and controlled in a specific manner, is all wrapped up in a single invention. Change any core component, and you aren't infringing the patent. Apple's recent inductive-charging patent, for example, actually covers inductive chargers that also use reradiating antennas to amplify the charged device's communication signals. A third-party inductive charger that only charges and does not amplify is not affected. The majority of the patent is actually covering the implementation of reradiating antennas being powered by a docking station to boost reception, and inductive charging is mentioned almost as an afterthought, seemingly to head off claims of "our dock does this too, so it's a novel and separately-patentable invention".
Of course, even if you avoid the patent, you're still vulnerable to a lawsuit, just like you are any other time. Anyone can be sued for anything, at any time. Whether the plaintiff actually wins is a different matter, but the sensational story's trumpeted by the media, anyway, so people can see ads while they shout about how unfair it all is, then see ads again when they're surprised that the case was dropped in a "sudden outbreak of common sense."
For all practical purposes, the major contenders do get equal access to technology, because they all have the funding to buy from the same place. The underdogs compete with older equipment, and accept that the relative performance hit is part of what makes them underdogs. If their athletes still do well (better than the equipment's performance gap would explain), they're more likely to be well-funded in the next round.
Even with the best equipment available, the main contest is still one of skill. The best running shoe in the world won't help you if you don't have the endurance to use it or the stride to keep an appropriate pace. As I recall, some equipment will actually reduce an athlete's performance if they aren't already highly trained, because the gear is specialized for a particular use pattern. Even without the aid of a particular swimsuit, Michael Phelps is still clearly a spectacular swimmer.
In my opinion, the Olympic motto of "faster, higher, stronger" doesn't just apply to the athletes from the participating countries. It also applies to the human race as a whole, including our technology. There should be no limit to what technology's permitted as long as it meets three criteria:
The technology must not harm the athlete any more than the sport itself
The technology must not diminish the expression of the athlete's skill, nor replace any normally-functioning part of the athlete's body, except as required by the sport itself
If the technology cannot be transferred or adapted to a normal human body, it must not alter the characteristics of the athlete's body in any manner to improve their performance in the sport, except as required by the sport itself.
By this definition, almost all current training methods would be allowed, almost all prohibited substances would still be banned, and those who have medically-necessary prostheses would still compete at normal levels, as long as their prostheses don't give them superhuman performance (like extra shock absorption in a runner's legs). Any technology that's a part of the sport is obviously still allowed, just in case cyborg telekinetic dodgeball ever becomes an Olympic sport.
It's a judgement like any other. The judge's opinion is exactly what counts. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The purpose of a design patent is to protect the look of a product in much the same way as a trademark protects a logo. In this case, the judge has ruled that the appearance of the two devices is dissimilar enough to avoid infringement, without having any particular features that make it different.
This is how most such rulings are (though I haven't heard of one being defined in terms of "cool" before). The rulings aren't "translated to law", because that would make a hard-and-fast rule for the future, making more work for everyone involved. Anyone producing a product somewhat similar to another would need to consult their lawyer to verify that it is different enough from every other product to satisfy the particular conditions of the law. Anyone producing an entirely new product would have no protection until the law is updated with a list of features that must be altered to meet the minimum difference. Anyone who previously created a product would bicker over the nuances of the law to secure their own market share.
This is exactly how the legal system should be: The legislature specifies a general rule in the most specific manner that will cover most use cases, and the judicial system determines how it applies to each case in a series of subjective rulings that can be used as precedent, but are not immutable.
Social change is a change in society's perception, rather than changing physical location, so you have to adapt the strategy to suit the need. Having 20% acceptance in five countries is more likely to spread change than having 100% acceptance in only a single country, because each country's acceptance grows on its own. In terms of a battle, this is a divide-and-conquer strategy, In terms of biology (a more appropriate analogy, IMHO), it's growing a flower garden from a hundred seeds rather than one.
In America, the "war" has already been won, as far as it will be for quite a while. Sexuality rights are at about the point that racial equality was during the 1960s: The most egregious laws have been fixed, and members of the oppressed groups fear bigots more than than the government. There are still enough bigots in the government, though, that continuing progress is stalled. Now we simply wait, taking every chance we can to point out that everyone, regardless of orientation, is still a person. Eventually enough bigots will die or retire, while the younger generation (who has grown up with the message of acceptance) takes office. Then the next round of change will happen, where all discrimination based on sexuality will be prohibited. Sure, there's always room for improvement... one more state allowing marriage, one more hate crime denounced nation-wide by the media, or one more teenager who's able to come out without being disowned by their family. It's unlikely, though, that any of that will significantly speed acceptance. The bigots are set in their ways.
That's very true, to an extent. There are also ethical standards which a lawyer can be disbarred for breaking, and as I recall (though IANAL) if a lawyer thinks something is illegal, they are obligated to tell their client. An allegation being questionable, though, is not a reason to dismiss it... it's a reason to argue for clarification.
Client says "this sliding thing is new", patent lawyer says "there's these older things, but they're all noticeably differently from ours", patent examiner says "okay, they're different enough", competitor says "but they're also similar!", lawyer says "the patent examiner said they were good", court says "no, they're too similar", media says "GIANT LAWSUIT BETWEEN ELECTRONICS TITANS COULD OUTLAW ALL PHONES".
As I've said before, it's not that lawyers do so many stupid things. By and large, they don't. Rather, Slashdot (and other news outlets) reports on the few stupid things to get reactions from people, because a rousing discussion is more profitable than objective journalism.
But this is a new day, and a whole new chance to bitch about lawyers and patents! If the masses don't get their Two Minutes Hate, they might actually start thinking, and we can't have that!
Har har. Intentional misunderstanding is not funny, it's annoying.
A (mathematically) progressive tax rate is (socially) progressive. A (mathematically) flat tax rate is (socially) regressive. A (mathematically) regressive tax rate is (socially) plutocracy.
Ahh, I see that's why we have over 10,000 of pages of the Tax Code. For clarifying that, silly me. What was I thinking. I "forgot" that over-engineering was a good thing./sarcasm
Yup. It covers everything from plain ol' normal income to how to tax gifts to foreign charities who are charities by American standards but not their home countries, after declaring bankruptcy. This is vitally important stuff to someone working with foreign charities and bankruptcies, but "over-engineering" to most others.
So we should obfuscate the hell out of it so NO ONE can practically follow it. Gotcha.
No, we should have them organized and cross-referenced into a document that can be read in sections, so nobody has to understand the whole thing at once, but can simply refer to the sections they need. You know, something like Title 26...
Right, so you've personally read ALL 20 Volumes of Title 26 which is 13,458 pages of the Tax Code??
No, but I've read the sections that apply to me to understand my tax situation. I'm probably not qualified to tell you your tax situation, but that's what tax preparers are for, whose training is vetted by lawyers who have (collectively) read the whole thing.
If no, then how you do you know you are _following_ the law?
For the exact same reason that I know I'm following California's laws for explosives: they don't apply to me. I've never dealt with explosives in California, and I've never been in the vast majority of situations described in the tax code.
Cognitive dissonance much?
You'll have to forgive me for not seeing the dissonance. Simplicity describes the measure of how detailed a system is, while fairness is a measure of how evenly the rules affect everyone. It's perfectly simple to say "No one under five feet tall may vote in any Presidential election" but it's obviously not fair. On the other hand, a rule of "No one may wear hats in public, except for those for whom hats are medically necessary, or otherwise required by law or an otherwise-legal mandated uniform, unless there is precipitation in excess of the equivalent of one quarter-inch of rainfall per hour, as reported by the National Weather Service" is far more complex, but fair, as it covers everyone equally and does not place undue hardship on any group of people. If the rule were simplified by, for example, removing the "medically necessary" clause, it would be less fair, because it effectively discriminates against those with skin damage or baldness, though it isn't explicitly written against them.
Similarly, a flat 10% tax rate is very simple, but also unfair, because that percentage is the only expense that changes. There are no limits that rent must be under 5% of someone's income, or that groceries are only 15%, or that vehicle maintenance will only cost you 2% of your income annually. There is no flat tax low enough to leave enough money for a family in poverty to feed itself.
A progressive tax is complicated, but much more fair. Each income bracket is assigned a rate that is (ideally) low enough to allow a decent standard of living (or in the case of poverty, not make things any worse), while high enough to cover the government's expenses.
If you were in school and got a 4.0 GPA is it FAIR that you are forced to give a portion of that to someone else? That is precisely what the _existing_ tax code does.
You mean like a group project, where my 4.0 is dependent on my fellow students getting off their ass and working? Yes, it sounds fair, because a part of the group project's lesson is management, so I am partially responsible for the work the others put in. From a different perspective, it's their hard work that lets me earn that 4.0, so it's also fair that we share the grade. I'm not sure how you're relating this to taxes, though.
The IRS is a perfect example of. A simple 10% flat tax would remove ALL the loop-holes.
It'd also remove all the definitions and clarity of the current system. What exactly is or is not taxed in this "simple" solution? If I give a gift to my brother-in-law with cancer to cover a hospital bill, does that count as taxable income for him? If so, then I'll just pay his bills directly so he can avoid the tax. If not, then I'll also give a gift to my wife of $everything, so I avoid all my taxes. If there's a limit on what's taxable to try to promote fairness, then I'll complain that it's a needless complication that slants the law in someone else's favor.
Simplicity and fairness are not correlated. No matter how simple or complex the system, there are always people who will abuse it for their own benefit, and there will always be someone who can't understand it. Thus far, the legal system has erred on the side of caution, making laws that are very specific at the risk of making them difficult to understand, and favoring the consistency of precedence over the flexibility of constant reinterpretation. They aren't too hard if you take the time to read and understand them, but most people just want something they can understand in a nutshell and not have to think about.
I could not agree with you more. Lured by money (and the thought of looking professional with a jacket and noose^Wnecktie), I briefly studied law back in college before moving into computer science, but I've kept an interest ever since, studying anything I've encountered in nearly two decades of programming. I've delved mostly into IP and traffic law, but almost everything I've encountered seems reasonable if initially approached with the attitude of "this made sense to somebody, so I probably don't understand it yet."
Law is very similar to programming, in that the most simple goal involves an incredible amount of overhead in special cases and clarification, because undefined behavior is an opening for abuse, which some evil human will exploit at some point. Thus any basic concept, like "school bus drivers must drive safely", may be dragged out into a 30-page dissertation detailing the minimum times to wait at a railroad crossing, the appropriate type of footwear, and the blinking frequency of turn signals. Unfortunately, the explanation for each requirement is lost (as documentation so often is), so any time someone is told they can't do X, they usually just get mad at the lawyer that told them, rather than try to figure out why X is probably a bad idea.
Lawyers serve as endpoints for communication between the legislature and the individuals and businesses trying to operate. Malice toward them is shooting the messenger.
Well, what you're seeing now is the eventual outcome of the vast majority of legal endeavors. That silly "common sense" almost always prevails, because, shockingly enough, judges are humans with the capacity to understand the details of a case and see past the misdirection the media throws at the general public. Of course, that misdirection is always highest at the start of a lawsuit, because an audacious corporation making outrageous claims is a good sensationalist story that people will pay attention to, and that brings prestige and profit.
Within the past few years, there have been several lawsuits brought up that the media could make a circus out of, and now they're all starting to conclude. The judgments will be made according to a mix of law and interpretation that the judge thinks is fair. Since it's ludicrously unlikely for a judge to actually agree with the absurd assertions the media has put forth, everything will seem like a sudden outburst of common sense when it's really just business as usual for the American legal system.
Pro151 is right (though at the moment modded at -1): it won't last long. I'd expect that by the end of the week, there will be some new legal shenanigans reported and sensationalized, so the anti-corporate zealots can have their Two Minutes Hate against those evil abusive companies, and the pro-corporate zealots can shout about how this is all the fault of government interfering in business, and the nonconformists can tout their crazy plans for how to fix everything by abolishing society and rebuilding it effectively the same but with all the problems magically gone. Everybody feels good about their particular opinion, and the media gets to feel good about starting a rousing discussion. It's a win-win, right?
That's what the product activation concept should be for. The way activation usually works now is where any activations beyond the first are unsuccessful, to fight those dirty pirates who obtain keys. The way it should work is that activating a license key disables the old installs, which will check in occasionally.
A limit of one key activation every month or so should be enough to stop widespread piracy, without affecting families, multi-computer households, or other legitimate users too much. Of course, that means software companies can't push extra licenses on people who don't really need them, so they don't want that...
You are not buying an Oracle product. You are buying a license to copy and use the Oracle product. You can sell that license or give it away, but then you do not have the license, and you are not legally allowed to use the product, and you don't have another license to sell or give away again.
In my opinion, if someone puts in the time and effort to produce something genuinely creative and original that furthers the intellectual state of the human race, they deserve some attention.
I'm going to go read a draft about a universe now...
Let's get the misconceptions out of the way, then, with a short lecture on copyright law. IANAL, but I've done the research repeatedly over the past few decades. I apologize in advance for the length of the post.
Copyrights (like patents) are not broad prohibition against anything kinda-sorta similar. You cannot have copyright protection on an overall plot, plot elements, or even the exact progression of events for characters with specific personalities.
What is copyrighted is the exact creative work, and its marketability. The name of "Han Solo" describing the gruff smuggler pilot is protected because its use impacts the market for Star Wars. This is where fanfiction crosses the boundary into infringement, because practically by definition, it uses existing characters (usually) without license. A fan-written story that fits into the Star Wars universe without actually mentioning any characters (or places, or other specifics that are specific to Star Wars) would not likely infringe.
However, it is possible to sue anyone for anything. This is regardless of copyright or patent law, as a suit is simply a request that a court work out an issue. Most lawyers are mindful of their reputation and standing, so they won't assist frivolous lawsuits, but there is always somebody who'll do or say anything for money. This is a problem with the American legal system (with which I'm familiar far more than the Australian), in that it is possible to do nothing wrong and still face overwhelming expense. Most stupid lawsuits will never amount to anything, because nobody (including the courts) want to waste time on them. That often includes the authors, who will sometimes encourage fanfiction as an enriching influence on their own work.
However, a lawyer might make a decent case against any fanfiction. If you do write a story that is incredibly close to the details of Star Wars such that it could affect how current works (and future works, to a limited extent) are accepted and marketed, a judge might even hear it, because details might surface that lead to more straightforward infringement (such as an admission that you based all the major locations off of Star Wars movie sets. It'd be an uphill battle, but the lawyer might be able to argue that your work somehow damages the marketability of Star Wars itself. I can't stress enough how difficult that lawsuit would actually be.
Once the lawsuit is actually brought forth, you can fight against it. You can claim there's no infringement, which is a pretty straightforward situation where you explain how your work really isn't Star Wars.because there's these few (but significant) details that utterly clash with the universe, or there's many other works that it draws from just as much, or several other strategies. If the lawsuit isn't thrown out then, you can claim any of several exceptions. If your work's a parody (like Rule 34 usually falls into), review, or other work that must use the original work as a base to have the same artistic result, and doesn't harm the original's market, it's a likely candidate for fair use, though that's not a guarantee. If you're writing fanfiction and using someone else's characters to save the trouble of creating your own backstories, fair use probably doesn't apply.
There are four criteria to fair use: the nature of the work, the amount that was copied, the effect on value, and the purpose in copying. There are no set thresholds for any of those criteria. The opening notes of the Super Mario theme were judged too much for fair use, yet several paragraphs of a novel were judged to not be. If you aren't profiting (even indirectly) from the infringement it's better, but even recognition as a fanfiction author is considered a form of profit. A summary of a movie that gives away the surprise ending (it's h
Of the two options presented, I most believe that the MemSQL team has beaten you to producing anything functional. You seem too incoherent to actually produce a useful program. The extent of your contributions to the world appears to be a list of anonymous posts to Slashdot (the vast majority of which are either downmodded to oblivion or only marginally appreciated) and a few old programs in Delphi, including an alarm clock with "extensive hand optimizations". I find no evidence that you have created anything of professional quality in the software realm. You have, however, produced a good many laughs with your seemingly genuine incompetence.
I never claimed I was a professor. I have a research job at a university, used to teach (as an adjunct faculty, actually), and wrote a few papers describing a new model that hasn't been explored before. You're the one twisting words now.
Ah, but this removes the need for those holes. It's a useful technique if you ever need to remove the faceholes... you know, for cleaning or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could argue that the value of the media should be split equally amongst each produced copy...
This is exactly what I'm arguing for, but recognizing that the number of sales is generally unknown at the time the pricing is set, and almost definitely unknown at the time the initial effort is put forth.
I doubt it's possible for Duke Nukem Forever to ever sell enough copies to make up for the amount of effort that went into making (and remaking, and redesigning, and remaking) it. Of course, 15 years ago, that seemed entirely likely, and maybe even with a hefty profit because consumers would (in total) value the game more than the total agreed value of the programmers' effort making it.
To declare that trivially produced copies hold value would in effect be to declare that the work has infinite value
I can declare that with anything, easily copied or not. I keep a rock on my back porch. It's unique, and I exerted effort to find and recover it. I value that effort at $1,000,000, because I can. Of course, nobody else will value it that high, so nobody will purchase it from me. Similarly, I can produce an infinite number of copies of my software, but eventually I will run out of people who will buy the copies, because they value it less than I do. Eventually, the valuation of each copy (as decided by the buyers) approaches zero, establishing an upper limit on society's valuation of my software.
Of course, that upper limit may be many times higher than what I paid someone else for the education, equipment, marketing, and distribution of those copies, so I could make a significant profit. For producing something that society values that highly, I see nothing wrong with that.
If the person who got a copy free was going to buy it in the first place, and if them getting it doesn't result in someone else purchasing it who wouldn't have otherwise, then sure it is a lost sale.
That's not their decision to make, though. The author, being the one who exerted the effort, chooses the value of his work. A buyer can either accept the valuation and receive the results of the effort, reject the deal, or suggest a different value that the buyer may agree to.
At no point, however, is it fair for the buyer to unilaterally decide to have the results of the effort without paying in return. That infringes the producer's freedom to choose the value for his work. A geologist being told that the expedition to a tropical island to find a new oil field was really a vacation, so he won't be paid, is unfair in the same manner. The person doing the work is denied the ability to bargain.
Sure it'd waste disk space and be rather stupid to do, but I just did it for free
If you value your effort that little, that's your right. Personally, as an author of a few FOSS programs, I like that, but you do not have the right to force that valuation on someone else.
Unless someone values you running in circles with rocks enough to expend their own effort in some other way (like earning money with which to pay you). Maybe you're supposed to be testing the durability of flooring under heavy load, but I digress.
Exerting effort does not inherently require that someone else value it, but all value is derived (either directly or indirectly) from the exertion of effort. However, as a society we have generally held that all effort is valued when it benefits someone else. The exception to this rule is slavery, where a person's effort benefits someone else, but the person exerting the effort does not have the freedom to choose the value of their work.
...effort does not equate to value). Someone is upset when they don't get credit, which is different than having valued assets removed from their possession.
So tell me, when you were born into this world, what valued assets did you have of your own? Not your family's, mind you, but your own? Apart from things you've put forth effort to produce, or put forth effort to earn the money to pay others to produce, what do you now possess that is of value?
Everything of value in this world is valued because of the human effort it took to produce it. Metals must be pulled from the Earth, ores must be smelted, and products must be assembled. Information must be conceived, clarified, and codified.
I have no moral responsibility to give credit, so I don't feel guilt.
I understand this to mean "I value physical effort infinitely more than mental effort". If I hold the exact opposite definition, you wouldn't mind mind being my slave, would you? I promise you'll only be doing worthless physical labor...
The effort spent to create the software can no longer be sold to someone else, either.
Instead, the author has worked out a plan for the pricing structure necessary to be fairly (in his or her mind) compensated for the time and effort, and making unlicensed copies is effectively removing a unit of income from that plan. The author could rebuild the plan to accommodate the lost payment, but now has to account for a smaller market, as well. Sure, the author can copy it fifteen billion times, but likewise a jeweler can spend his life making fifteen billion pieces to hand out to every cheap bastard who wants one.
Exactly... It's not like anybody had to put effort into making those variables do anything, or draw the pictures that appear when the variable holds a particular value, or work out and balance the mechanics of a game that the variables influence. These variables are just information in a storage system, so therefore must be completely detached from any value or human effort whatsoever.
Similarly, the energy that grew my lunch came from the sun, which gives energy away for free, so it's perfectly legal and right for me to dine-and-dash, right?
Please. This is supposed to be a post-race society, where they are simply helicopters, and it doesn't matter what color they are on the outside, or how big their rotors are, or whether they have sliding or swinging doors, or whether they like to mate with other helicopters of the same model or not... what matters is that they are all helicopters, valuable in their own right, and all equally capable of coming after you.
There's already a term for it: different.
The notion of using a touch-sensitive surface to control an electronic device isn't patentable. The specific type of device, paired with the specific type of screen, and controlled in a specific manner, is all wrapped up in a single invention. Change any core component, and you aren't infringing the patent. Apple's recent inductive-charging patent, for example, actually covers inductive chargers that also use reradiating antennas to amplify the charged device's communication signals. A third-party inductive charger that only charges and does not amplify is not affected. The majority of the patent is actually covering the implementation of reradiating antennas being powered by a docking station to boost reception, and inductive charging is mentioned almost as an afterthought, seemingly to head off claims of "our dock does this too, so it's a novel and separately-patentable invention".
Of course, even if you avoid the patent, you're still vulnerable to a lawsuit, just like you are any other time. Anyone can be sued for anything, at any time. Whether the plaintiff actually wins is a different matter, but the sensational story's trumpeted by the media, anyway, so people can see ads while they shout about how unfair it all is, then see ads again when they're surprised that the case was dropped in a "sudden outbreak of common sense."
For all practical purposes, the major contenders do get equal access to technology, because they all have the funding to buy from the same place. The underdogs compete with older equipment, and accept that the relative performance hit is part of what makes them underdogs. If their athletes still do well (better than the equipment's performance gap would explain), they're more likely to be well-funded in the next round.
Even with the best equipment available, the main contest is still one of skill. The best running shoe in the world won't help you if you don't have the endurance to use it or the stride to keep an appropriate pace. As I recall, some equipment will actually reduce an athlete's performance if they aren't already highly trained, because the gear is specialized for a particular use pattern. Even without the aid of a particular swimsuit, Michael Phelps is still clearly a spectacular swimmer.
In my opinion, the Olympic motto of "faster, higher, stronger" doesn't just apply to the athletes from the participating countries. It also applies to the human race as a whole, including our technology. There should be no limit to what technology's permitted as long as it meets three criteria:
By this definition, almost all current training methods would be allowed, almost all prohibited substances would still be banned, and those who have medically-necessary prostheses would still compete at normal levels, as long as their prostheses don't give them superhuman performance (like extra shock absorption in a runner's legs). Any technology that's a part of the sport is obviously still allowed, just in case cyborg telekinetic dodgeball ever becomes an Olympic sport.
It's a judgement like any other. The judge's opinion is exactly what counts. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The purpose of a design patent is to protect the look of a product in much the same way as a trademark protects a logo. In this case, the judge has ruled that the appearance of the two devices is dissimilar enough to avoid infringement, without having any particular features that make it different.
This is how most such rulings are (though I haven't heard of one being defined in terms of "cool" before). The rulings aren't "translated to law", because that would make a hard-and-fast rule for the future, making more work for everyone involved. Anyone producing a product somewhat similar to another would need to consult their lawyer to verify that it is different enough from every other product to satisfy the particular conditions of the law. Anyone producing an entirely new product would have no protection until the law is updated with a list of features that must be altered to meet the minimum difference. Anyone who previously created a product would bicker over the nuances of the law to secure their own market share.
This is exactly how the legal system should be: The legislature specifies a general rule in the most specific manner that will cover most use cases, and the judicial system determines how it applies to each case in a series of subjective rulings that can be used as precedent, but are not immutable.
Exactly what I was coming to say.
Social change is a change in society's perception, rather than changing physical location, so you have to adapt the strategy to suit the need. Having 20% acceptance in five countries is more likely to spread change than having 100% acceptance in only a single country, because each country's acceptance grows on its own. In terms of a battle, this is a divide-and-conquer strategy, In terms of biology (a more appropriate analogy, IMHO), it's growing a flower garden from a hundred seeds rather than one.
In America, the "war" has already been won, as far as it will be for quite a while. Sexuality rights are at about the point that racial equality was during the 1960s: The most egregious laws have been fixed, and members of the oppressed groups fear bigots more than than the government. There are still enough bigots in the government, though, that continuing progress is stalled. Now we simply wait, taking every chance we can to point out that everyone, regardless of orientation, is still a person. Eventually enough bigots will die or retire, while the younger generation (who has grown up with the message of acceptance) takes office. Then the next round of change will happen, where all discrimination based on sexuality will be prohibited. Sure, there's always room for improvement... one more state allowing marriage, one more hate crime denounced nation-wide by the media, or one more teenager who's able to come out without being disowned by their family. It's unlikely, though, that any of that will significantly speed acceptance. The bigots are set in their ways.
That's very true, to an extent. There are also ethical standards which a lawyer can be disbarred for breaking, and as I recall (though IANAL) if a lawyer thinks something is illegal, they are obligated to tell their client. An allegation being questionable, though, is not a reason to dismiss it... it's a reason to argue for clarification.
Client says "this sliding thing is new", patent lawyer says "there's these older things, but they're all noticeably differently from ours", patent examiner says "okay, they're different enough", competitor says "but they're also similar!", lawyer says "the patent examiner said they were good", court says "no, they're too similar", media says "GIANT LAWSUIT BETWEEN ELECTRONICS TITANS COULD OUTLAW ALL PHONES".
As I've said before, it's not that lawyers do so many stupid things. By and large, they don't. Rather, Slashdot (and other news outlets) reports on the few stupid things to get reactions from people, because a rousing discussion is more profitable than objective journalism.
But this is a new day, and a whole new chance to bitch about lawyers and patents! If the masses don't get their Two Minutes Hate, they might actually start thinking, and we can't have that!
Follow the hivemind! Corporations are bad!
Har har. Intentional misunderstanding is not funny, it's annoying.
A (mathematically) progressive tax rate is (socially) progressive. A (mathematically) flat tax rate is (socially) regressive. A (mathematically) regressive tax rate is (socially) plutocracy.
Ahh, I see that's why we have over 10,000 of pages of the Tax Code. For clarifying that, silly me. What was I thinking. I "forgot" that over-engineering was a good thing. /sarcasm
Yup. It covers everything from plain ol' normal income to how to tax gifts to foreign charities who are charities by American standards but not their home countries, after declaring bankruptcy. This is vitally important stuff to someone working with foreign charities and bankruptcies, but "over-engineering" to most others.
So we should obfuscate the hell out of it so NO ONE can practically follow it. Gotcha.
No, we should have them organized and cross-referenced into a document that can be read in sections, so nobody has to understand the whole thing at once, but can simply refer to the sections they need. You know, something like Title 26...
Right, so you've personally read ALL 20 Volumes of Title 26 which is 13,458 pages of the Tax Code??
No, but I've read the sections that apply to me to understand my tax situation. I'm probably not qualified to tell you your tax situation, but that's what tax preparers are for, whose training is vetted by lawyers who have (collectively) read the whole thing.
If no, then how you do you know you are _following_ the law?
For the exact same reason that I know I'm following California's laws for explosives: they don't apply to me. I've never dealt with explosives in California, and I've never been in the vast majority of situations described in the tax code.
Cognitive dissonance much?
You'll have to forgive me for not seeing the dissonance. Simplicity describes the measure of how detailed a system is, while fairness is a measure of how evenly the rules affect everyone. It's perfectly simple to say "No one under five feet tall may vote in any Presidential election" but it's obviously not fair. On the other hand, a rule of "No one may wear hats in public, except for those for whom hats are medically necessary, or otherwise required by law or an otherwise-legal mandated uniform, unless there is precipitation in excess of the equivalent of one quarter-inch of rainfall per hour, as reported by the National Weather Service" is far more complex, but fair, as it covers everyone equally and does not place undue hardship on any group of people. If the rule were simplified by, for example, removing the "medically necessary" clause, it would be less fair, because it effectively discriminates against those with skin damage or baldness, though it isn't explicitly written against them.
Similarly, a flat 10% tax rate is very simple, but also unfair, because that percentage is the only expense that changes. There are no limits that rent must be under 5% of someone's income, or that groceries are only 15%, or that vehicle maintenance will only cost you 2% of your income annually. There is no flat tax low enough to leave enough money for a family in poverty to feed itself.
A progressive tax is complicated, but much more fair. Each income bracket is assigned a rate that is (ideally) low enough to allow a decent standard of living (or in the case of poverty, not make things any worse), while high enough to cover the government's expenses.
If you were in school and got a 4.0 GPA is it FAIR that you are forced to give a portion of that to someone else? That is precisely what the _existing_ tax code does.
You mean like a group project, where my 4.0 is dependent on my fellow students getting off their ass and working? Yes, it sounds fair, because a part of the group project's lesson is management, so I am partially responsible for the work the others put in. From a different perspective, it's their hard work that lets me earn that 4.0, so it's also fair that we share the grade. I'm not sure how you're relating this to taxes, though.
A
The IRS is a perfect example of. A simple 10% flat tax would remove ALL the loop-holes.
It'd also remove all the definitions and clarity of the current system. What exactly is or is not taxed in this "simple" solution? If I give a gift to my brother-in-law with cancer to cover a hospital bill, does that count as taxable income for him? If so, then I'll just pay his bills directly so he can avoid the tax. If not, then I'll also give a gift to my wife of $everything, so I avoid all my taxes. If there's a limit on what's taxable to try to promote fairness, then I'll complain that it's a needless complication that slants the law in someone else's favor.
Simplicity and fairness are not correlated. No matter how simple or complex the system, there are always people who will abuse it for their own benefit, and there will always be someone who can't understand it. Thus far, the legal system has erred on the side of caution, making laws that are very specific at the risk of making them difficult to understand, and favoring the consistency of precedence over the flexibility of constant reinterpretation. They aren't too hard if you take the time to read and understand them, but most people just want something they can understand in a nutshell and not have to think about.
I could not agree with you more. Lured by money (and the thought of looking professional with a jacket and noose^Wnecktie), I briefly studied law back in college before moving into computer science, but I've kept an interest ever since, studying anything I've encountered in nearly two decades of programming. I've delved mostly into IP and traffic law, but almost everything I've encountered seems reasonable if initially approached with the attitude of "this made sense to somebody, so I probably don't understand it yet."
Law is very similar to programming, in that the most simple goal involves an incredible amount of overhead in special cases and clarification, because undefined behavior is an opening for abuse, which some evil human will exploit at some point. Thus any basic concept, like "school bus drivers must drive safely", may be dragged out into a 30-page dissertation detailing the minimum times to wait at a railroad crossing, the appropriate type of footwear, and the blinking frequency of turn signals. Unfortunately, the explanation for each requirement is lost (as documentation so often is), so any time someone is told they can't do X, they usually just get mad at the lawyer that told them, rather than try to figure out why X is probably a bad idea.
Lawyers serve as endpoints for communication between the legislature and the individuals and businesses trying to operate. Malice toward them is shooting the messenger.
Well, what you're seeing now is the eventual outcome of the vast majority of legal endeavors. That silly "common sense" almost always prevails, because, shockingly enough, judges are humans with the capacity to understand the details of a case and see past the misdirection the media throws at the general public. Of course, that misdirection is always highest at the start of a lawsuit, because an audacious corporation making outrageous claims is a good sensationalist story that people will pay attention to, and that brings prestige and profit.
Within the past few years, there have been several lawsuits brought up that the media could make a circus out of, and now they're all starting to conclude. The judgments will be made according to a mix of law and interpretation that the judge thinks is fair. Since it's ludicrously unlikely for a judge to actually agree with the absurd assertions the media has put forth, everything will seem like a sudden outburst of common sense when it's really just business as usual for the American legal system.
Pro151 is right (though at the moment modded at -1): it won't last long. I'd expect that by the end of the week, there will be some new legal shenanigans reported and sensationalized, so the anti-corporate zealots can have their Two Minutes Hate against those evil abusive companies, and the pro-corporate zealots can shout about how this is all the fault of government interfering in business, and the nonconformists can tout their crazy plans for how to fix everything by abolishing society and rebuilding it effectively the same but with all the problems magically gone. Everybody feels good about their particular opinion, and the media gets to feel good about starting a rousing discussion. It's a win-win, right?
That's what the product activation concept should be for. The way activation usually works now is where any activations beyond the first are unsuccessful, to fight those dirty pirates who obtain keys. The way it should work is that activating a license key disables the old installs, which will check in occasionally.
A limit of one key activation every month or so should be enough to stop widespread piracy, without affecting families, multi-computer households, or other legitimate users too much. Of course, that means software companies can't push extra licenses on people who don't really need them, so they don't want that...
You are not buying an Oracle product. You are buying a license to copy and use the Oracle product. You can sell that license or give it away, but then you do not have the license, and you are not legally allowed to use the product, and you don't have another license to sell or give away again.
In my opinion, if someone puts in the time and effort to produce something genuinely creative and original that furthers the intellectual state of the human race, they deserve some attention.
I'm going to go read a draft about a universe now...
Let's get the misconceptions out of the way, then, with a short lecture on copyright law. IANAL, but I've done the research repeatedly over the past few decades. I apologize in advance for the length of the post.
Copyrights (like patents) are not broad prohibition against anything kinda-sorta similar. You cannot have copyright protection on an overall plot, plot elements, or even the exact progression of events for characters with specific personalities.
What is copyrighted is the exact creative work, and its marketability. The name of "Han Solo" describing the gruff smuggler pilot is protected because its use impacts the market for Star Wars. This is where fanfiction crosses the boundary into infringement, because practically by definition, it uses existing characters (usually) without license. A fan-written story that fits into the Star Wars universe without actually mentioning any characters (or places, or other specifics that are specific to Star Wars) would not likely infringe.
However, it is possible to sue anyone for anything. This is regardless of copyright or patent law, as a suit is simply a request that a court work out an issue. Most lawyers are mindful of their reputation and standing, so they won't assist frivolous lawsuits, but there is always somebody who'll do or say anything for money. This is a problem with the American legal system (with which I'm familiar far more than the Australian), in that it is possible to do nothing wrong and still face overwhelming expense. Most stupid lawsuits will never amount to anything, because nobody (including the courts) want to waste time on them. That often includes the authors, who will sometimes encourage fanfiction as an enriching influence on their own work.
However, a lawyer might make a decent case against any fanfiction. If you do write a story that is incredibly close to the details of Star Wars such that it could affect how current works (and future works, to a limited extent) are accepted and marketed, a judge might even hear it, because details might surface that lead to more straightforward infringement (such as an admission that you based all the major locations off of Star Wars movie sets. It'd be an uphill battle, but the lawyer might be able to argue that your work somehow damages the marketability of Star Wars itself. I can't stress enough how difficult that lawsuit would actually be.
Once the lawsuit is actually brought forth, you can fight against it. You can claim there's no infringement, which is a pretty straightforward situation where you explain how your work really isn't Star Wars.because there's these few (but significant) details that utterly clash with the universe, or there's many other works that it draws from just as much, or several other strategies. If the lawsuit isn't thrown out then, you can claim any of several exceptions. If your work's a parody (like Rule 34 usually falls into), review, or other work that must use the original work as a base to have the same artistic result, and doesn't harm the original's market, it's a likely candidate for fair use, though that's not a guarantee. If you're writing fanfiction and using someone else's characters to save the trouble of creating your own backstories, fair use probably doesn't apply.
There are four criteria to fair use: the nature of the work, the amount that was copied, the effect on value, and the purpose in copying. There are no set thresholds for any of those criteria. The opening notes of the Super Mario theme were judged too much for fair use, yet several paragraphs of a novel were judged to not be. If you aren't profiting (even indirectly) from the infringement it's better, but even recognition as a fanfiction author is considered a form of profit. A summary of a movie that gives away the surprise ending (it's h
Of the two options presented, I most believe that the MemSQL team has beaten you to producing anything functional. You seem too incoherent to actually produce a useful program. The extent of your contributions to the world appears to be a list of anonymous posts to Slashdot (the vast majority of which are either downmodded to oblivion or only marginally appreciated) and a few old programs in Delphi, including an alarm clock with "extensive hand optimizations". I find no evidence that you have created anything of professional quality in the software realm. You have, however, produced a good many laughs with your seemingly genuine incompetence.
I never claimed I was a professor. I have a research job at a university, used to teach (as an adjunct faculty, actually), and wrote a few papers describing a new model that hasn't been explored before. You're the one twisting words now.
-Mr. H
Ah, but this removes the need for those holes. It's a useful technique if you ever need to remove the faceholes... you know, for cleaning or something.