Of course I'd still be coding. Instead of spending my time on projects that are more likely to produce a profit I'd spend all my time on more research based projects that are not likely to produce any profit anytime soon...or have a much more meaningful application to all of humanity instead of just a select few.
Just like in every field there are those of us that do this because we must put food on the table and we hate it...even if we love to code we may hate our boss or hate what mundane stuff they have us doing. If you can ignore the code monkey work and do things you find interesting then hopefully you'll never stop coding. Some people are made to do this stuff...just like a relative of mine that loves to carve wood...if it doesn't relax you or give you something in return then you're sure to find nothing of value in it.
For me, seeing a complex system I designed work in harmony just as I envisioned it in my head...is my gold little star for the day. Even after a decade of coding I still find myself looking for more complex systems to create that little spark in my head after everything is said and done. I hope when I'm 60...30 years from now...I'll still be able to find that spark at the end of a project. I think for most of us we have developed system far more complex than anything they maybe willing to allow us to do at our jobs...so you kinda need to have side projects that give you that outlet...otherwise you'll wind up hating your work. Most people though can't devote that much time to coding without going completely insane though!
You have a year from first sale to get a patent filed from what I was told. I'm not however sure how this relates if you had your clients sign a contract regarding your work or something.
Look, I've filed two patents...both had software and hardware components. It was a complete waste of my time. You can expect your first round to get rejected outright...and your second round might take years. What is the point? You will waste about 1k if you do it yourself and way more if you have a lawyer do it. What I learned from filing my patents became very valuable to me...but their IP value is ZERO. Granted one is still pending but my product has changed so much since that filing...it's basically useless to continue with it.
You can expect your patent to sit around waiting in the PTO for 1-5 years...where will the industry be by then? You know what happens though don't you? The second it gets published or the second your product reaches the doorstep of another company...they clone your product and add some new features you didn't think of and then throw a crap load at marketing. What about your pending patents? Well while they are pending those companies will tell you to come back when they are issued...if they are issued. Between the moment they first sell a clone of your product to the moment you have a lawyer send them a nasty lawyer...they keep all of those profits. Only after they have been notified will you get a chance at their profits and only after you have been issued a patent...and only after you have won a very very long drawn out court case that you're not likely to have the money for.
Patents are for the big boys...you're wasting your time if you're thinking like them. Think small...agile...mobile...they can't compete with that. I know you put a shit load of work into your products as we all do...but the bottom line is they have way more resources than you or I ever will. You DON'T COMPETE WITH THAT. You avoid butting heads. You work around their patents...not try and force feed them yours....you will always loose...and if by some odd chance you win...think about all the time you wasted and how much more value it would have had if you devoted it to idea number 58392 instead of idea 1. It's not worth it, the system is broken...don't believe me? Then file away...and the day you prevent another company from stealing your idea through "patent pending" on your product...is the day I'll eat tofu...yeah tofu.
I think the biggest blow the space race has had are the obvious failures. Do we honestly think an entire nation would be just as eager to goto Mars if some 100 something people died in the past 50 years in horrible horrible ways? Let's face it, as long as we have one NASA and one government controlling all explorations and trips anywhere off planet...any failure...small or large will doom the human race to never leaving this planet. Congress will use any failure as a reason not to waste money when there are so many problems here to solve. The resolve of citizens will goto zero the second someone posts a youtube video of a man going through rapid decompression online.
There is only 1 answer...we will fail...and you can not fail...so the only answer is to remove all restrictions and to support the gun hoe attitude of small corporations. When they fail though we'll come back to government trying to protect us through preventing us from doing anything remotely fun.
We can waste billions away hiring countless intelligent people and just have 1 line of code that destroys those billions of dollars in a second. Or we can try to open the flood gates...remove restrictions...find a way to mass produce space capable vehicles...find a safe way to get them all into space as safely as possible...separate your failures so one does not hinder countless other projects. NASA should not be at the forefront of any space race...its time has come and gone. NASA should only be an oversight to small companies interested in bring minerals back to earth. There is NO reason to colonize another planet other than to ensure humanities survival past its own stupidity. Do we really want to risk destroying any remaining courage to go into space on colonizing another planet so early? There is profit out there in many forms...it doesn't take a human being to mine and bring that profit back. NASA should focus on FUNDING NON MANNED explorations and AIDING SMALL BUSINESSES to build robotic establishments off world...capable of producing fuel and mining what resources are there to bring those refined materials back to earth for sale on a global market.
Because in a non software patent a specific state of that machine is patented. A specific order or collection in how those nuts, bolts, plastic and metal are working together. You could design a system around the patent depending on how far you're willing to go and how basic the patent is. The more complicated the device and the more defined the patent is, the easier it is to design a machine around it.
In the software side of things though they do not patent how the systems work together. They patent all forms of how the systems could work together, making it impossible to design around it. A copyright on software is more comparible to a patent on a machine. A patent on software though is more like having a monopoly on an entire field of business. Like the Hybrid patents we were just talking about here, it was shown that GM worked around the patents...that isn't possible in a lot of cases in software patents. It's just like if they patented all different combinations you could make this sentence. There is a reason why math isn't patented and this reason can be seen in software and some day DNA when our laws catch up.
How do you declair a win in a cyberwar? When you crash a plane or when you have 911 services blocked for 24 hours? How about when the leader of the nation's e-mail is hacked and all their private e-mails regarding enlarging their penis is revealed to the world...
Everyone knows the problem started with Mickey Mouse. Copyright is what it is today because Disney has thrown enough money at law makers. So you know what I think the solution is?
I'd like to hear someone that has started their own business on writing software explain how the system would have worked if copyrights were removed from the world? Do you think Linux would be Linux today? Um no. Microsoft would have started spitting out fucked up version of Linux a long time ago breaking any form of a way to control the future of Linux. Without copyright MS has the right to use Linux code and screw it up anyway they want and never release the source code.
As far as I can tell the problem is people think they need 40k worth of music on their iPod to be happy and content. Disney is worried about losing what their entire Industry was built on the second the market gets flooded with a billion Mickey Mouse cartoons they didn't create...lol. And instead of fighting against the Industry that has destroyed the image of copyright the public masses just decide to remove it. How is this a solution?
Copyright in software gives a kind of virtual patent on an idea until another company can develop their own..this costs time and money to avoid copyrights. In a world with no copyrights any software designer can write their killer app and start to sell it...any company can then decompile that code slap their logo on it and sell it and market the creator out of existence. Anyone that thinks the software industry is about writing a killer app is kidding themselves. It is about marketing.
I got a better one for you...lets say an artist creates a new song...pick your pick...any one of them. Lets say you just wrote some killer lyrics that spoke to people...you had a great band and (fuck if I know how artists do their thing) and out comes a one hit wonder. Do you honestly think you'll get credit for it? An artist that has already made it big will just take your song and play in front of millions and then claim they wrote it first and without copyrights...honestly no one will care who wrote it first...but who will make all the money off of it?
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA so much for how they have treated us, their consumers that we think the only solution is to destroy the system. The same is true for the patent world. Patents today are just a fucking joke...I'd say a major part of that problem is software patents. Why don't we try and fix the system first? Limit the amount of time a copyright is valid per industry. Software say 20 years. Music the life of the artist. Movies 15 years after the first DVD sale or whatever media we use...etc. Make the system make sense not this 70+life of artist crap. Who the fuck gives a shit about the code I write 150 years from now? Why do we assume copyright by default? That's another dumb ass idea. Don't destroy the only system that protects many industries just because you want to have 40k in music on your ipod but don't have 40k to spend on it.
Exactly. An engineer or a company that designs such systems would not want them to commit an act that would be self destructive...that would lead to returns...possible lawsuits for distributing a damaged product. Maybe the answer is to take this a bit further and make machines understand that crossing a human would lead to its own destruction. Like on Red Dwarf the silicon heaven or whatever...haha.
I don't think this is by any means a simple concept like writing three rules that can never be broken. If the system is intelligent it will always find ways around the rules to complete the task...like how Clinton doesn't think a blow job is sex. So if an intelligent being is created and we don't somehow have any moral objection to enslaving them our job would be a thousand times more complicated than just writing 3 commandments...I mean rules.
It's not like religion is the answer, that's obvious. But if we are to build an intelligent system then we would need to create an image of their brain systems after they have gone through extensive learning. Much like how a child can be trained to become a mass murderer or a saint it still doesn't negate the fact there are still many inherited traits like mental disorders...there are also flip sides to that coin that are not considered disorders but are also equally inherited. We are just now beginning to understand the parts of our own brains that light up when we believe we are in god mode and we think we are doing gods work or speaking to him. It doesn't have to be god...we could be devil worshipers and those same areas will light up. The point is there is a massive pleasure center for most of us when we believe we are doing good. It is not simply following the law or following what society decides is acceptable...but as I said not everyone has this inherited trait and some that have inherited it can easily be environmentally persuaded to ignore it for the rest of their lives.
So I think the key is to not build in logic but to build in an emotional pleasure center of some sort that rewards the being for doing good things that are positive to humanity...but then you come back to what decides what is positive to humanity.
Obvious bipedal is retarded. It makes more sense to have a spider running around with free arms...but no human on the planet is going to be comfortable with a dog size spider running around their home. Which of course comes back to creating human look alikes.
I think it's the most arrogant thing in the world to believe we have the ability to create a being that is incapable of being destructive towards humanity. We can not do this if we want truly intelligent beings. While I have no doubt there will be a billion hybrids...humans tired of being human in the future...and their actions and cross communicating with pure AI beings will have a drastic change to the actions of those AIs regardless of how we raised them...the entire point is we have a very important job to do in raising our cousins up to be moral beings....who knows what they could do if allowed to. But all of this AI crap talk is more or less mute...we're no where close to creating such a thing...by the time we are who knows where other technologies have led us...AI maybe old news when it actually becomes AI...we might be fighting off all the biological monsters we created by then to care about AI...haha.
We founded our company because we didn't want to follow rules. We wanted to be the ones who make the rules instead.
It looks like you answered your own question. If you're not in it for the money then don't be in it for the money. But given that later down in the same paragraph you mention being able to make more than you're being offered if you continue along your path...maybe you are in it for the money and you've just filled your thoughts with a virtue instead of a sin (greed is still that if I remember...).
Look, you should take out your emotions from this. Will making a deal give you funding to be the ones to make the rules on another project or idea you may have? It sounds like they are more interested in hiring you than buying you out. Companies look for talent in many different ways. They know the best way to get the real money makers is to get them before they make any money.
Being approached like this is amazing if you haven't been advertizing or selling your idea to anyone. How did they even find out about you or your idea. If you take anything out of this experience that you are soon to have remember...the IT world is like a pack of wolfs. You are either with them or you are food...ok bad analogy but it was given as advice to me once. If you don't agree to their terms you can either expect to be black balled by that company or expect to find yourself in court. If they have approached you this early in the game chances are good they already have a competing product in the works and rather than risking you filing a patent they'd rather just buy you now.
At least tell us a general topic that your product covers?
People need to grow up! With this bill signed into law no one could not post anything online negative at all about anyone. All a plaintiff would have to do to make someone's life a living hell is to be a complainer and ball their eyes out in court.
Due to a personal experience on this note, it's bad enough blogs get taken down just for speaking out of acceptable tune. We have raised a bunch of gutless hopeless children that have no concept of standing up for yourself or letting words lay where they belong. There used to be this concept that only actions can cause distress...but now? Today? We are a nation of complainers. I find this pathetic! - and I just nominated myself as the first one to be punished by this law...for anyone that is in support of it would see that statement as me calling them pathetic and thus causing them mental pains...GROW UP!
I think there is a common misconception though of listeners of music. In my personal experience and from those I have spoken with at least those that actively seek out an indie label on P2P because they can not find them anywhere else are more likely to purchase the music to begin with. Those I guess are the lovers of the music. But there is this huge majority that simply would never fork out money for even one note of music regardless of who created it. They simply have no interest in paying an artist for their work, and they will not.
If you are given something for free vs something that has a cost, if you have no moral choice to make in the matter the majority of people will chose something that is free. There is this odd ideal among music lovers that just because you enjoy a certain kind of music so much you will feel obligated to pay for it out of the kindness of your heart. The real truth is though the majority of the listening public are not music lovers they are just music listeners. They are not going to actively seek out a way to pay back an artist for their hard work unless they are forced to.
If even an ounce of what I say is the truth then you come back to the question of how do you support a model for artists to continue to create works? Do you rely on the kindness of music lovers or do you impose laws that require payment for the artist's time spent on their creation.
40k, that's how much it costs to fill up an iPod...how many of us are pirates in the world is kind of a mute point. I think the real question is of course will the removal of a law increase sales or decrease sales? Again, just going from what I have seen...those that are willing to pay already are...they find ways to pay for it. Availability doesn't mean payment...as with every business on the planet marketing means the potential to payment. P2P I think is a valid marketing method...but I also think we still need laws to force people to pay that wouldn't normally.
Correct me if I'm wrong but from what little searching I just did copyright law in the US at least was created in 1790. What methods did they have before that date that allowed the almost flawless recreation of works?
But it is worth considering. If you can make a profit, that argument is moot, but if you can't, wouldn't you rather release something for free, and have an audience of thousands or millions, than cling tightly to your copyright, and have an audience of tens?
If my objective was to change lives or change a viewpoint, then yes I would release something under Creative Commons or the like...and I have released ideas under CC before.
The question is whether you can have the right to control an idea, or a series of words, or bits.
No I believe the real question is if labor still constitutes value. Our world has long since moved on from ideas only forming material objects yet we still have to apply some form of laws we have over material objects to ideas. I do not however believe patents on business models or software are valid. I do however believe to support a world filled with intellectuals we need a method to support their way of life and their contributions to your world and mine. People have altered viewpoints after reading a book. People can do more with software than they could without it. If you believe you are a better person after reading a book. If you believe you have more time on your hands after using some piece of software; shouldn't you then be allowed to pay the person that altered your thoughts or freed up some of your time?
Perhaps the best analogy is the sandcastle. DRM will never work, and piracy is a reality, now and forever. It is up to you to figure out how to make a profit in this world. With all that education and work ethic, I'm sure you'll find a way -- and yes, it is possible to compete with piracy.
Here is another analogy for you. Let's say you build a new car. It's unique. You customized it right down to the bumper. Now let's say there is a machine out there that can reproduce your car right down to that bumper. Someone uses this machine to sell dozens of copies of your unique priceless car...what does that do to the value of your car?
Are all object of material in this world only worth the value of the materials used to create them? Or are material items in this world attached a value based on labor and the cost of that labor? Just because a thing has no material value does not mean it has no value. The value of the item is dependent on the cost vs availability. If I have no control over the availability of the product then I can not and never will be able to control the cost. Take a diamond for example. If the world was flooded with diamonds would it have any value? Of course not but you can not reproduce a diamond can you? You can create them just as flawless...which is why there are ways to identify non natural diamonds because the companies that sold them realized they have to instill value into the idea of something being natural despite it being identical in material worth.
While there are problems with the system...what we are arguing is a huge step for mankind. To find value in ideas instead of material worth signifies a change in everything from culture to the types of jobs we all have. What will have value in the world when machine create everything for us?
These are questions that have no easy answers...and simply attaching materialistic value to labor is the wrong path to take. It would mean the only jobs anyone could ever hold would be ones that were based on older economic models and not models based on ideas.
I'm finishing up 10's of thousands of lines of code in my spare time. By your logic someone can come along and take it from me and sell it himself. What interest would I have in creating another 10k lines of code if this can happen with no repercussions? It would be a waste of my time and money to spend any time on developing even one line of code unless someone was paying me for it to begin with. Who would own the code then? Me? Or the person that loaned me the computer that has an encrypted hard drive.
Exactly! I hate it when I read about someone telling me I should be happy that others use my work without my permission. If they had any idea how much time of my life I spent writting those things, how much hard work and education it took to even create them...they would not be telling me I have no rights to the work I create.
B) and C) So you think your moral oral capable of dispensing judgement on the USA?
To defend my nation with words...how cowardly am I. But hey, I'm a proud nationalist.
"Leaders of the free world" - who else on the planet deserves such a title? You don't become a leader by sitting on the side lines while communism takes over the planet. You don't become a leader by sitting on the side lines as terrorists decide our military goals by sitting on the side lines.
In my personal opinion you can feel free to call us either "liberators of the oppressed", "leaders of the free world", or "murderers"...there honestly isn't a difference on this planet. If you are sheltered enough to think that the world revolves around high school debate teams where all conflicts are always resolved by a swift few words and punches are met with detention and parents grounding you...look man the world did not grow up like you or I.
Once majority of the population of the planet becomes convinced that you are just a bunch of "evil murderers" the long term consequences of all of this will be far greater for you then just "blah, blah, blah". "Evil murderers" are justifiably put down. I would recommend you reconsider your attitude.
Ok, I will. You just made it clear your motives are not have an intelligent discussion about anything. Your motives are to incite anger and a general distaste for anyone and anything American. I'll count the number of years it takes you to pick up a gun...that is after all the end result you are calling for right? Violence as payment for violence? How great you are to show us the way...how great you are to tell me how horrible of a person I am...
Just like a company looking for profit, no one said the USA was supposed to be some deity incapable of doing any wrongs. If we lived up to the expectations some that live in the western world have of us...we'd never even sneeze without saying excuse me first.
I can't honestly believe how anti-American Slashdot has become. I've been revolted by some of the comments I've seen here lately. Calling our soldiers murderers? The Mods don't seam to be helping any, they've modded up just about every post calling the USA evil.
Maybe we should have a nice long chat about what is an acceptable responce for a nation to give after a terrorist attack. And even that comment right there will start an entire new thread about how we had no right to invade Iraq...and blah blah blah. It's getting old. I'd rather just admit I'm an evil murderer to get them to shut up already. Who cares in the bigger picture anyway...I don't think a single nation on the planet doesn't have blood on its hands.
Actually I have and am currently working at a large company. Who will treat a person with respect if you have no IP rights to a product? Who will treat you with respect when you have an idea that can easily be taken away with no one the wiser?
Working in a large company I have met many many people that adopt ideas and even code as their own just so they can reach the next ladder rung in the corporate world. Vastly cheaper and easier than stealing an idea and berrying you under a lifetime worth of legal paperwork?
I'm sorry but I'd have to disagree with this. Get over it? If the idea is even half as good as he thinks, the people he has to worry about are not like minded people with little to no cash...it's the large companies that can just sneeze at the problem and have more than enough cash flow and people involved to have a working product in seconds. Let's say one of those people he got over it with decides they don't like him anymore? Guess who they will be picking up the phone to call next stating, and I quote..."I got a great FREE idea for you!".
He should not get over it. Have a look at the movie flash of genius - I had to look up how to spell genius so I guess I'm not one!!! Hahaha!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I'd still be coding. Instead of spending my time on projects that are more likely to produce a profit I'd spend all my time on more research based projects that are not likely to produce any profit anytime soon...or have a much more meaningful application to all of humanity instead of just a select few.
Just like in every field there are those of us that do this because we must put food on the table and we hate it...even if we love to code we may hate our boss or hate what mundane stuff they have us doing. If you can ignore the code monkey work and do things you find interesting then hopefully you'll never stop coding. Some people are made to do this stuff...just like a relative of mine that loves to carve wood...if it doesn't relax you or give you something in return then you're sure to find nothing of value in it.
For me, seeing a complex system I designed work in harmony just as I envisioned it in my head...is my gold little star for the day. Even after a decade of coding I still find myself looking for more complex systems to create that little spark in my head after everything is said and done. I hope when I'm 60...30 years from now...I'll still be able to find that spark at the end of a project. I think for most of us we have developed system far more complex than anything they maybe willing to allow us to do at our jobs...so you kinda need to have side projects that give you that outlet...otherwise you'll wind up hating your work. Most people though can't devote that much time to coding without going completely insane though!
You have a year from first sale to get a patent filed from what I was told. I'm not however sure how this relates if you had your clients sign a contract regarding your work or something.
Look, I've filed two patents...both had software and hardware components. It was a complete waste of my time. You can expect your first round to get rejected outright...and your second round might take years. What is the point? You will waste about 1k if you do it yourself and way more if you have a lawyer do it. What I learned from filing my patents became very valuable to me...but their IP value is ZERO. Granted one is still pending but my product has changed so much since that filing...it's basically useless to continue with it.
You can expect your patent to sit around waiting in the PTO for 1-5 years...where will the industry be by then? You know what happens though don't you? The second it gets published or the second your product reaches the doorstep of another company...they clone your product and add some new features you didn't think of and then throw a crap load at marketing. What about your pending patents? Well while they are pending those companies will tell you to come back when they are issued...if they are issued. Between the moment they first sell a clone of your product to the moment you have a lawyer send them a nasty lawyer...they keep all of those profits. Only after they have been notified will you get a chance at their profits and only after you have been issued a patent...and only after you have won a very very long drawn out court case that you're not likely to have the money for.
Patents are for the big boys...you're wasting your time if you're thinking like them. Think small...agile...mobile...they can't compete with that. I know you put a shit load of work into your products as we all do...but the bottom line is they have way more resources than you or I ever will. You DON'T COMPETE WITH THAT. You avoid butting heads. You work around their patents...not try and force feed them yours....you will always loose...and if by some odd chance you win...think about all the time you wasted and how much more value it would have had if you devoted it to idea number 58392 instead of idea 1. It's not worth it, the system is broken...don't believe me? Then file away...and the day you prevent another company from stealing your idea through "patent pending" on your product...is the day I'll eat tofu...yeah tofu.
I think the biggest blow the space race has had are the obvious failures. Do we honestly think an entire nation would be just as eager to goto Mars if some 100 something people died in the past 50 years in horrible horrible ways? Let's face it, as long as we have one NASA and one government controlling all explorations and trips anywhere off planet...any failure...small or large will doom the human race to never leaving this planet. Congress will use any failure as a reason not to waste money when there are so many problems here to solve. The resolve of citizens will goto zero the second someone posts a youtube video of a man going through rapid decompression online.
There is only 1 answer...we will fail...and you can not fail...so the only answer is to remove all restrictions and to support the gun hoe attitude of small corporations. When they fail though we'll come back to government trying to protect us through preventing us from doing anything remotely fun.
We can waste billions away hiring countless intelligent people and just have 1 line of code that destroys those billions of dollars in a second. Or we can try to open the flood gates...remove restrictions...find a way to mass produce space capable vehicles...find a safe way to get them all into space as safely as possible...separate your failures so one does not hinder countless other projects. NASA should not be at the forefront of any space race...its time has come and gone. NASA should only be an oversight to small companies interested in bring minerals back to earth. There is NO reason to colonize another planet other than to ensure humanities survival past its own stupidity. Do we really want to risk destroying any remaining courage to go into space on colonizing another planet so early? There is profit out there in many forms...it doesn't take a human being to mine and bring that profit back. NASA should focus on FUNDING NON MANNED explorations and AIDING SMALL BUSINESSES to build robotic establishments off world...capable of producing fuel and mining what resources are there to bring those refined materials back to earth for sale on a global market.
Because in a non software patent a specific state of that machine is patented. A specific order or collection in how those nuts, bolts, plastic and metal are working together. You could design a system around the patent depending on how far you're willing to go and how basic the patent is. The more complicated the device and the more defined the patent is, the easier it is to design a machine around it.
In the software side of things though they do not patent how the systems work together. They patent all forms of how the systems could work together, making it impossible to design around it. A copyright on software is more comparible to a patent on a machine. A patent on software though is more like having a monopoly on an entire field of business. Like the Hybrid patents we were just talking about here, it was shown that GM worked around the patents...that isn't possible in a lot of cases in software patents. It's just like if they patented all different combinations you could make this sentence. There is a reason why math isn't patented and this reason can be seen in software and some day DNA when our laws catch up.
How do you declair a win in a cyberwar? When you crash a plane or when you have 911 services blocked for 24 hours? How about when the leader of the nation's e-mail is hacked and all their private e-mails regarding enlarging their penis is revealed to the world...
Everyone knows the problem started with Mickey Mouse. Copyright is what it is today because Disney has thrown enough money at law makers. So you know what I think the solution is?
I'd like to hear someone that has started their own business on writing software explain how the system would have worked if copyrights were removed from the world? Do you think Linux would be Linux today? Um no. Microsoft would have started spitting out fucked up version of Linux a long time ago breaking any form of a way to control the future of Linux. Without copyright MS has the right to use Linux code and screw it up anyway they want and never release the source code.
As far as I can tell the problem is people think they need 40k worth of music on their iPod to be happy and content. Disney is worried about losing what their entire Industry was built on the second the market gets flooded with a billion Mickey Mouse cartoons they didn't create...lol. And instead of fighting against the Industry that has destroyed the image of copyright the public masses just decide to remove it. How is this a solution?
Copyright in software gives a kind of virtual patent on an idea until another company can develop their own..this costs time and money to avoid copyrights. In a world with no copyrights any software designer can write their killer app and start to sell it...any company can then decompile that code slap their logo on it and sell it and market the creator out of existence. Anyone that thinks the software industry is about writing a killer app is kidding themselves. It is about marketing.
I got a better one for you...lets say an artist creates a new song...pick your pick...any one of them. Lets say you just wrote some killer lyrics that spoke to people...you had a great band and (fuck if I know how artists do their thing) and out comes a one hit wonder. Do you honestly think you'll get credit for it? An artist that has already made it big will just take your song and play in front of millions and then claim they wrote it first and without copyrights...honestly no one will care who wrote it first...but who will make all the money off of it?
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA so much for how they have treated us, their consumers that we think the only solution is to destroy the system. The same is true for the patent world. Patents today are just a fucking joke...I'd say a major part of that problem is software patents. Why don't we try and fix the system first? Limit the amount of time a copyright is valid per industry. Software say 20 years. Music the life of the artist. Movies 15 years after the first DVD sale or whatever media we use...etc. Make the system make sense not this 70+life of artist crap. Who the fuck gives a shit about the code I write 150 years from now? Why do we assume copyright by default? That's another dumb ass idea. Don't destroy the only system that protects many industries just because you want to have 40k in music on your ipod but don't have 40k to spend on it.
Exactly. An engineer or a company that designs such systems would not want them to commit an act that would be self destructive...that would lead to returns...possible lawsuits for distributing a damaged product. Maybe the answer is to take this a bit further and make machines understand that crossing a human would lead to its own destruction. Like on Red Dwarf the silicon heaven or whatever...haha.
I don't think this is by any means a simple concept like writing three rules that can never be broken. If the system is intelligent it will always find ways around the rules to complete the task...like how Clinton doesn't think a blow job is sex. So if an intelligent being is created and we don't somehow have any moral objection to enslaving them our job would be a thousand times more complicated than just writing 3 commandments...I mean rules.
It's not like religion is the answer, that's obvious. But if we are to build an intelligent system then we would need to create an image of their brain systems after they have gone through extensive learning. Much like how a child can be trained to become a mass murderer or a saint it still doesn't negate the fact there are still many inherited traits like mental disorders...there are also flip sides to that coin that are not considered disorders but are also equally inherited. We are just now beginning to understand the parts of our own brains that light up when we believe we are in god mode and we think we are doing gods work or speaking to him. It doesn't have to be god...we could be devil worshipers and those same areas will light up. The point is there is a massive pleasure center for most of us when we believe we are doing good. It is not simply following the law or following what society decides is acceptable...but as I said not everyone has this inherited trait and some that have inherited it can easily be environmentally persuaded to ignore it for the rest of their lives.
So I think the key is to not build in logic but to build in an emotional pleasure center of some sort that rewards the being for doing good things that are positive to humanity...but then you come back to what decides what is positive to humanity.
Obvious bipedal is retarded. It makes more sense to have a spider running around with free arms...but no human on the planet is going to be comfortable with a dog size spider running around their home. Which of course comes back to creating human look alikes.
I think it's the most arrogant thing in the world to believe we have the ability to create a being that is incapable of being destructive towards humanity. We can not do this if we want truly intelligent beings. While I have no doubt there will be a billion hybrids...humans tired of being human in the future...and their actions and cross communicating with pure AI beings will have a drastic change to the actions of those AIs regardless of how we raised them...the entire point is we have a very important job to do in raising our cousins up to be moral beings....who knows what they could do if allowed to. But all of this AI crap talk is more or less mute...we're no where close to creating such a thing...by the time we are who knows where other technologies have led us...AI maybe old news when it actually becomes AI...we might be fighting off all the biological monsters we created by then to care about AI...haha.
We founded our company because we didn't want to follow rules. We wanted to be the ones who make the rules instead.
It looks like you answered your own question. If you're not in it for the money then don't be in it for the money. But given that later down in the same paragraph you mention being able to make more than you're being offered if you continue along your path...maybe you are in it for the money and you've just filled your thoughts with a virtue instead of a sin (greed is still that if I remember...).
Look, you should take out your emotions from this. Will making a deal give you funding to be the ones to make the rules on another project or idea you may have? It sounds like they are more interested in hiring you than buying you out. Companies look for talent in many different ways. They know the best way to get the real money makers is to get them before they make any money.
Being approached like this is amazing if you haven't been advertizing or selling your idea to anyone. How did they even find out about you or your idea. If you take anything out of this experience that you are soon to have remember...the IT world is like a pack of wolfs. You are either with them or you are food...ok bad analogy but it was given as advice to me once. If you don't agree to their terms you can either expect to be black balled by that company or expect to find yourself in court. If they have approached you this early in the game chances are good they already have a competing product in the works and rather than risking you filing a patent they'd rather just buy you now.
At least tell us a general topic that your product covers?
People need to grow up! With this bill signed into law no one could not post anything online negative at all about anyone. All a plaintiff would have to do to make someone's life a living hell is to be a complainer and ball their eyes out in court.
Due to a personal experience on this note, it's bad enough blogs get taken down just for speaking out of acceptable tune. We have raised a bunch of gutless hopeless children that have no concept of standing up for yourself or letting words lay where they belong. There used to be this concept that only actions can cause distress...but now? Today? We are a nation of complainers. I find this pathetic! - and I just nominated myself as the first one to be punished by this law...for anyone that is in support of it would see that statement as me calling them pathetic and thus causing them mental pains...GROW UP!
I think there is a common misconception though of listeners of music. In my personal experience and from those I have spoken with at least those that actively seek out an indie label on P2P because they can not find them anywhere else are more likely to purchase the music to begin with. Those I guess are the lovers of the music. But there is this huge majority that simply would never fork out money for even one note of music regardless of who created it. They simply have no interest in paying an artist for their work, and they will not.
If you are given something for free vs something that has a cost, if you have no moral choice to make in the matter the majority of people will chose something that is free. There is this odd ideal among music lovers that just because you enjoy a certain kind of music so much you will feel obligated to pay for it out of the kindness of your heart. The real truth is though the majority of the listening public are not music lovers they are just music listeners. They are not going to actively seek out a way to pay back an artist for their hard work unless they are forced to.
If even an ounce of what I say is the truth then you come back to the question of how do you support a model for artists to continue to create works? Do you rely on the kindness of music lovers or do you impose laws that require payment for the artist's time spent on their creation.
40k, that's how much it costs to fill up an iPod...how many of us are pirates in the world is kind of a mute point. I think the real question is of course will the removal of a law increase sales or decrease sales? Again, just going from what I have seen...those that are willing to pay already are...they find ways to pay for it. Availability doesn't mean payment...as with every business on the planet marketing means the potential to payment. P2P I think is a valid marketing method...but I also think we still need laws to force people to pay that wouldn't normally.
Correct me if I'm wrong but from what little searching I just did copyright law in the US at least was created in 1790. What methods did they have before that date that allowed the almost flawless recreation of works?
But it is worth considering. If you can make a profit, that argument is moot, but if you can't, wouldn't you rather release something for free, and have an audience of thousands or millions, than cling tightly to your copyright, and have an audience of tens?
If my objective was to change lives or change a viewpoint, then yes I would release something under Creative Commons or the like...and I have released ideas under CC before.
The question is whether you can have the right to control an idea, or a series of words, or bits.
No I believe the real question is if labor still constitutes value. Our world has long since moved on from ideas only forming material objects yet we still have to apply some form of laws we have over material objects to ideas. I do not however believe patents on business models or software are valid. I do however believe to support a world filled with intellectuals we need a method to support their way of life and their contributions to your world and mine. People have altered viewpoints after reading a book. People can do more with software than they could without it. If you believe you are a better person after reading a book. If you believe you have more time on your hands after using some piece of software; shouldn't you then be allowed to pay the person that altered your thoughts or freed up some of your time?
Perhaps the best analogy is the sandcastle. DRM will never work, and piracy is a reality, now and forever. It is up to you to figure out how to make a profit in this world. With all that education and work ethic, I'm sure you'll find a way -- and yes, it is possible to compete with piracy.
Here is another analogy for you. Let's say you build a new car. It's unique. You customized it right down to the bumper. Now let's say there is a machine out there that can reproduce your car right down to that bumper. Someone uses this machine to sell dozens of copies of your unique priceless car...what does that do to the value of your car?
Are all object of material in this world only worth the value of the materials used to create them? Or are material items in this world attached a value based on labor and the cost of that labor? Just because a thing has no material value does not mean it has no value. The value of the item is dependent on the cost vs availability. If I have no control over the availability of the product then I can not and never will be able to control the cost. Take a diamond for example. If the world was flooded with diamonds would it have any value? Of course not but you can not reproduce a diamond can you? You can create them just as flawless...which is why there are ways to identify non natural diamonds because the companies that sold them realized they have to instill value into the idea of something being natural despite it being identical in material worth.
While there are problems with the system...what we are arguing is a huge step for mankind. To find value in ideas instead of material worth signifies a change in everything from culture to the types of jobs we all have. What will have value in the world when machine create everything for us?
These are questions that have no easy answers...and simply attaching materialistic value to labor is the wrong path to take. It would mean the only jobs anyone could ever hold would be ones that were based on older economic models and not models based on ideas.
I'm finishing up 10's of thousands of lines of code in my spare time. By your logic someone can come along and take it from me and sell it himself. What interest would I have in creating another 10k lines of code if this can happen with no repercussions? It would be a waste of my time and money to spend any time on developing even one line of code unless someone was paying me for it to begin with. Who would own the code then? Me? Or the person that loaned me the computer that has an encrypted hard drive.
Exactly! I hate it when I read about someone telling me I should be happy that others use my work without my permission. If they had any idea how much time of my life I spent writting those things, how much hard work and education it took to even create them...they would not be telling me I have no rights to the work I create.
A) Yes, never said it wasn't.
B) and C) So you think your moral oral capable of dispensing judgement on the USA?
To defend my nation with words...how cowardly am I. But hey, I'm a proud nationalist.
"Leaders of the free world" - who else on the planet deserves such a title? You don't become a leader by sitting on the side lines while communism takes over the planet. You don't become a leader by sitting on the side lines as terrorists decide our military goals by sitting on the side lines.
In my personal opinion you can feel free to call us either "liberators of the oppressed", "leaders of the free world", or "murderers"...there honestly isn't a difference on this planet. If you are sheltered enough to think that the world revolves around high school debate teams where all conflicts are always resolved by a swift few words and punches are met with detention and parents grounding you...look man the world did not grow up like you or I.
Once majority of the population of the planet becomes convinced that you are just a bunch of "evil murderers" the long term consequences of all of this will be far greater for you then just "blah, blah, blah". "Evil murderers" are justifiably put down. I would recommend you reconsider your attitude.
Ok, I will. You just made it clear your motives are not have an intelligent discussion about anything. Your motives are to incite anger and a general distaste for anyone and anything American. I'll count the number of years it takes you to pick up a gun...that is after all the end result you are calling for right? Violence as payment for violence? How great you are to show us the way...how great you are to tell me how horrible of a person I am...
(since, you know, Iraq was not involved in terrorist attacks against the U.S. that triggered the "War on Terror").
Thanks for making my point...it wasn't about Iraq you know....it was about Slashdot...doh!
Just like a company looking for profit, no one said the USA was supposed to be some deity incapable of doing any wrongs. If we lived up to the expectations some that live in the western world have of us...we'd never even sneeze without saying excuse me first.
I can't honestly believe how anti-American Slashdot has become. I've been revolted by some of the comments I've seen here lately. Calling our soldiers murderers? The Mods don't seam to be helping any, they've modded up just about every post calling the USA evil. Maybe we should have a nice long chat about what is an acceptable responce for a nation to give after a terrorist attack. And even that comment right there will start an entire new thread about how we had no right to invade Iraq...and blah blah blah. It's getting old. I'd rather just admit I'm an evil murderer to get them to shut up already. Who cares in the bigger picture anyway...I don't think a single nation on the planet doesn't have blood on its hands.
Actually I have and am currently working at a large company. Who will treat a person with respect if you have no IP rights to a product? Who will treat you with respect when you have an idea that can easily be taken away with no one the wiser? Working in a large company I have met many many people that adopt ideas and even code as their own just so they can reach the next ladder rung in the corporate world. Vastly cheaper and easier than stealing an idea and berrying you under a lifetime worth of legal paperwork?
I'm sorry but I'd have to disagree with this. Get over it? If the idea is even half as good as he thinks, the people he has to worry about are not like minded people with little to no cash...it's the large companies that can just sneeze at the problem and have more than enough cash flow and people involved to have a working product in seconds. Let's say one of those people he got over it with decides they don't like him anymore? Guess who they will be picking up the phone to call next stating, and I quote..."I got a great FREE idea for you!". He should not get over it. Have a look at the movie flash of genius - I had to look up how to spell genius so I guess I'm not one!!! Hahaha!