If your service has obviously legal applications, then you shouldn't be responsible if your customer performs illegal actions with the results of your service.
Case in point, should every seller of dvd drives be required to be sure that their customers will not burn pirated media with it? Just seems like common sense that the manufacturer's should have no liability whatsoever if their customers perform illegal actions. Or, if you prefer a closer analogy, if I install that DVD drive into someones computer for them, can you charge me with contributory actions for performing that service if they burn pirated media and sell it? Of course not.
There are many legal reasons to mod a console. It is not and should not be the responsibility of the person doing the modding to know whether their customer is going to perform the legal or illegal actions with the modifications.
Is someone came to me with a DVD-R and the name of a game written on it in permanent marker, my immediate assumption would be that it's likely to be pirated. If they guy assured me it was a legitimate backup then I'd still be a little suspicious unless he could also show me the original. I can't help thinking that anyone who didn't even suspect that it might be pirated is hopelessly naive and that "I really am that stupid" is rarely a good legal defence.
If someone came to me saying how they were setting my console up to play backed up games and then produced a DVD-R with game's name written on it to test that the modification worked, the obvious assumption is that it is a game he has backed up and uses for testing purposes. Whether or not it is pirated, he owns the original, or not is irrelevant to me. Not to mention that if it is pirated, I can't get in trouble for his piracy if I did not help him commit the infringement.
I'm sorry for not clarifying. Yes, the assumption was made that I was speaking about a trial that has already started (ie. a jury has been seated and sworn in). Obviously if the jury has not been seated yet, the trial has not technically begun (it's pre-trial hearings/arguments/indictments, etc.) and thus the charges can be dropped and refiled.
Why do you doubt it? It's very possible he had his own legitimate backup, or even homebrew? Why would someone intentionally incriminate themselves when there is plenty of legal alternatives? It's not like these mod chips are solely for pirated games, even if they are a big part of it. Just because your friends don't avoid it in a more casual manner doesn't mean someone making a business out of this would incriminate themselves like that.
I'd say at that point it's up to the defendant to explain that he thought it was a legitimte copy and explain why he made absolutely no effort to check the legitimacy of the disc when it should be very obvious that it's highly likely that it is pirated.
Of course, even if he was selling exclusively to pirates it would make sense to insist that it only be tested on a copy that was most likely a backup.
Except if the disc is just a backup that he made of a game he owned, why would he have to "check the legitmacy of the disc"? How could it be obvious that it's "highly likely that it is pirated" if he made it himself by copying a game he owned?
Technically, at least in the US, most jurisdictions find downloading to not be illegal. It is the uploading which is illegal. The problem is the distribution and making available. The reason why they can apply this and sue people who torrent things is because when you're torrenting you're also allowing others to download from you because of the nature of Bittorrent.
Therefore it is technically completely legal to download a game you own because you've already purchased it under the fact that you are allowed to make a backup copy.
As was also pointed out in yesterday's thread, double jeopardy is attached so they cannot file the same charges for the same thing again unless they go through the whole rigmarole of getting the undercover agents again to get evidence of him doing it again, etc. You can't simply voluntarily drop the charges and try again. It would need to be new charges for a new instance of the "crime"
Except as the google blog post stated, negative reviews don't harm the company's site, they just don't get positive boosts and credit from it.
Essentially before, both positive and negative reviews helped and counted, now only positive reviews help and count. This doesn't allow other companies to destroy other's page rank.
I hope you're just being sarcastic, but I guess I'll clarify.
Yes, I'm saying that we should trust it because most believe the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a reliable source while many believe Wikipedia to not be reliable.
Of course you were probably making a judgement due to the fact that I mentioned the information was copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Does it make you feel better if I point out that the reason why I know it was copied directly was because it had a citation stating it?
Just because something can be used for infringement doesn't mean it WILL be used for infringement. Therefore the action of modding the console shouldn't be illegal regardless the purpose. The only thing that they should consider is whether he DID pirate games, and thus hit him for the piracy. If there was no piracy, then there was no infringement. There should be no crime here regardless.
Just in case you don't think wikipedia is trustworthy, it seems the entire paragraph in which had a lot of that information was copied directly from the Encyclopedia britannica. Double Jeopardy
Actually, double jeopardy applies to trials regardless whether it was an acquittal or conviction. The defense cannot ask "for another trial" when found guilty, they can appeal. There has to be a basis for the appeal but an appeal is not another trial of the same kind, you go to the court of appeals and a judge or judges will determine if something was done wrong during a trial in order to warrant a change in the decision.
Also, the only way a trial can be retried over different charges that cover the same actions is if they are significantly different charges (you can't charge someone with manslaughter and then later charge them with murder for the same death. You can however charge them later with robbery if the murder arose from the robbery).
And from wikipedia: "Nor can the state voluntarily dismiss a case after trial has begun in order to start over." If there is declared a mistrial, or if the Judge dismisses without prejudice then yes, they can start over. But a prosecutor cannot voluntarily drop a case and then restart it. Double jeopardy forbids it.
Except the kid even stated that he was modding Xboxs exclusively to run backups and homebrew software due to the way that the xbox disc tray scratches up discs. Just because it will be able to run pirated software doesn't mean it will be used like that.
Also, pirated software is not stolen:) Just copied.
Aside from the fact that it is entirely possible that the download was done to an external hard drive which got knocked over and suffered a plate crash. It's happened to me before. Hard drives are very fickle when moved while writing especially if the case sucks. Aside from the fact that there'd be no outside damage to the drive, it just wouldn't work.
I was just confused because your response made no sense. Where did either orphiucus or the AC claim they were nothing for you to call them nothing on that basis? Who was cowering or afraid?
Did your mother name you "zeroshade"?
It would be awesome if I could reply "Why, yes. She did!" =P As for "cowering" under a pseudonym. You don't know me so what would knowing my name give you? It would be as informative to you as zeroshade is. I'm not afraid of anything, I just don't see a point in having people who know me such as an employer be able to look up what I do and post on my free time. I use the same pseudonym everywhere so it's actually just as useful as a real name to you.:)
you certainly are a real zero
*clap**clap**clap* Well said my friend, well said. What do you do for an encore?
you're completely pathetic
If I may venture a slight psychological guess, I'd say you're the pathetic one due to your apparent pathological need to put down and insult random people on a message board online who have done nothing but either disagree with you or question and be confused by you. Perhaps, you insult everyone and call everyone pathetic, asking what they are afraid of because you are actually afraid that you yourself are pathetic and worthless. Wouldn't it be great if this were true? It would certainly explain some things.:) But please, go on. It's fun to watch a troll run out of steam.
You know it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service.
But it's wrong for a company to use their control of one industry (ISPs providing internet service) to leverage themselves in another industry (ISPs providing for example, streaming video). You even admit that "some will/have tried it" so the question is that you don't find it wrong for an ISP to intentionally slow down or charge extra money from a company that provides a streaming service that competes with their own?
That'll be ineffective and will stiffle[sic] potential innovation.
Actually, the lack of neutrality will stifle innovation. The internet has only prospered until now due to neutrality. As long as the content producer pays for their own bandwidth they can supply to whoever wants to download. Now ISPs want to, in addition to what the content companies will be paying for their own bandwidth, charge them for the privilege of being on their network? Or simply just slow down a competing service so that their service is used more? Give me a break. It will prevent developers from wanting to develop internet applications that may overlap with something provided by an ISP. Ideas like Netflix would go wasted because people will only use what the ISP provides because it would cost much more to use the competing services.
Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that just adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.
I'm sure you also don't like the regulations that enforce clean water and clean air, or maybe the health regulations that help ensure you won't get food poisoning from a restaurant you decide to go to. The original common carrier regulation that was passed in the Telecommunications Act is the reason that the phone industry prospered and grew and innovated.
Net neutrality, in context of what most here on Slashdot speak of it as, is about preventing discrimination and disallowing censorship. Please explain to me how a law or power that effectively says corporations cannot block content from a service and that they cannot discriminate based on the source of said content could possibly be used by the government to control the internet? It would be like saying that the government controls the private sector because of the anti-discrimination regulations for hiring for business. Or the government runs the food industry due to regulations enforcing clean food that is safe to consume.
Your entire argument is predicated on all regulation that you don't like is evil and you should fear anything the government wants to do. In addition you believe the ISPs who claim that net neutrality will stifle innovation (when in fact it will foster it).
But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.
I hope we do get Net Neutrality, when even the "Father of the Internet" Tim Berners-Lee supports it, you have to realize there is credibility in the concept. As for demanding private keys, passwords, instant access to data, etc. That has nothing to do with net neutrality nor could a net neutrality policy be turned into that. It would have to be something entirely separate added in which I would of course object to, as would many people. You are afraid of possible abuse of the regulation. I understand that, I do. Right now, I'm afraid of abuse without the regulation. The difference is your fear is "possible" and may or may not happen. The abuse by ISPs of the market without neutrality is already happening and certain to continue. A properly constructed Network Neutrality policy will address only Net Neutrality and abuses can be watched for and dealt with by the people. Just as anything else.
Besides, as evidenced by the COICA bill, net neutrality is not needed for the government to try to take control of the internet. We don't want government control of the internet, we want preventions against corporate control of the internet.
government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.
Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?
Falcon
Helps to read the whole post.
unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.
There is a very large difference between a regulation saying that "Corporations may not take this action" and a regulation that states "the government may legally take this action".
So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?
That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.
because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.
Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.
which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.
Actually, it's partially run by the people by way of juries. Not to mention it is only due to the laws that the courts can allow this sort of thing to happen. Thereby stopping a law that would do just that is a good thing. Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.
Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
In theory, you are correct that the analogy of physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents. In practice however, software patents are granted for ideas. Algorithms. Not specific implementations. That's the problem and why, as a developer, I detest them. If I come up with an idea and implement it, I have to wonder if someone else came up with that idea already and no matter how they implemented it, I can get sued for using the same idea. When you're dealing with software and development, the idea is all what matters. You can implement an algorithm in hundreds of ways some are more efficient than others. However, software patents don't cover a specific implementation of an algorithm, they cover the algorithm itself. It's like patenting a mathematical formula. It shouldn't be allowed because it restricts progress more than any benefit it may provide to the person who came up with it.
In addition, frequently many developers come up with the same idea for the same algorithm at the same time, but worlds apart. Why should one be allowed to use his idea and the other not allowed just because one of them got to the patent office faster? Even though they came up with different ways of actually implementing the idea?
Slashdot Mirror
If your service has obviously legal applications, then you shouldn't be responsible if your customer performs illegal actions with the results of your service.
Case in point, should every seller of dvd drives be required to be sure that their customers will not burn pirated media with it? Just seems like common sense that the manufacturer's should have no liability whatsoever if their customers perform illegal actions. Or, if you prefer a closer analogy, if I install that DVD drive into someones computer for them, can you charge me with contributory actions for performing that service if they burn pirated media and sell it? Of course not.
There are many legal reasons to mod a console. It is not and should not be the responsibility of the person doing the modding to know whether their customer is going to perform the legal or illegal actions with the modifications.
Is someone came to me with a DVD-R and the name of a game written on it in permanent marker, my immediate assumption would be that it's likely to be pirated. If they guy assured me it was a legitimate backup then I'd still be a little suspicious unless he could also show me the original. I can't help thinking that anyone who didn't even suspect that it might be pirated is hopelessly naive and that "I really am that stupid" is rarely a good legal defence.
If someone came to me saying how they were setting my console up to play backed up games and then produced a DVD-R with game's name written on it to test that the modification worked, the obvious assumption is that it is a game he has backed up and uses for testing purposes. Whether or not it is pirated, he owns the original, or not is irrelevant to me. Not to mention that if it is pirated, I can't get in trouble for his piracy if I did not help him commit the infringement.
I'm sorry for not clarifying. Yes, the assumption was made that I was speaking about a trial that has already started (ie. a jury has been seated and sworn in). Obviously if the jury has not been seated yet, the trial has not technically begun (it's pre-trial hearings/arguments/indictments, etc.) and thus the charges can be dropped and refiled.
How do you bring a game over to a friend's house then?
Why do you doubt it? It's very possible he had his own legitimate backup, or even homebrew? Why would someone intentionally incriminate themselves when there is plenty of legal alternatives? It's not like these mod chips are solely for pirated games, even if they are a big part of it. Just because your friends don't avoid it in a more casual manner doesn't mean someone making a business out of this would incriminate themselves like that. I'd say at that point it's up to the defendant to explain that he thought it was a legitimte copy and explain why he made absolutely no effort to check the legitimacy of the disc when it should be very obvious that it's highly likely that it is pirated. Of course, even if he was selling exclusively to pirates it would make sense to insist that it only be tested on a copy that was most likely a backup.
Except if the disc is just a backup that he made of a game he owned, why would he have to "check the legitmacy of the disc"? How could it be obvious that it's "highly likely that it is pirated" if he made it himself by copying a game he owned?
Therefore he did nothing illegal.
I'd say both. Nothing wrong and nothing illegal.
Technically, at least in the US, most jurisdictions find downloading to not be illegal. It is the uploading which is illegal. The problem is the distribution and making available. The reason why they can apply this and sue people who torrent things is because when you're torrenting you're also allowing others to download from you because of the nature of Bittorrent.
Therefore it is technically completely legal to download a game you own because you've already purchased it under the fact that you are allowed to make a backup copy.
As was also pointed out in yesterday's thread, double jeopardy is attached so they cannot file the same charges for the same thing again unless they go through the whole rigmarole of getting the undercover agents again to get evidence of him doing it again, etc. You can't simply voluntarily drop the charges and try again. It would need to be new charges for a new instance of the "crime"
Except as the google blog post stated, negative reviews don't harm the company's site, they just don't get positive boosts and credit from it.
Essentially before, both positive and negative reviews helped and counted, now only positive reviews help and count. This doesn't allow other companies to destroy other's page rank.
I hope you're just being sarcastic, but I guess I'll clarify.
Yes, I'm saying that we should trust it because most believe the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a reliable source while many believe Wikipedia to not be reliable.
Of course you were probably making a judgement due to the fact that I mentioned the information was copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Does it make you feel better if I point out that the reason why I know it was copied directly was because it had a citation stating it?
Actually I was asking the prosecutor to use reason, I've long since given up on asking Congress for it.
Just because something can be used for infringement doesn't mean it WILL be used for infringement. Therefore the action of modding the console shouldn't be illegal regardless the purpose. The only thing that they should consider is whether he DID pirate games, and thus hit him for the piracy. If there was no piracy, then there was no infringement. There should be no crime here regardless.
Wonder if you could expense it.......
Just in case you don't think wikipedia is trustworthy, it seems the entire paragraph in which had a lot of that information was copied directly from the Encyclopedia britannica. Double Jeopardy
Actually, double jeopardy applies to trials regardless whether it was an acquittal or conviction. The defense cannot ask "for another trial" when found guilty, they can appeal. There has to be a basis for the appeal but an appeal is not another trial of the same kind, you go to the court of appeals and a judge or judges will determine if something was done wrong during a trial in order to warrant a change in the decision.
Also, the only way a trial can be retried over different charges that cover the same actions is if they are significantly different charges (you can't charge someone with manslaughter and then later charge them with murder for the same death. You can however charge them later with robbery if the murder arose from the robbery).
And from wikipedia: "Nor can the state voluntarily dismiss a case after trial has begun in order to start over." If there is declared a mistrial, or if the Judge dismisses without prejudice then yes, they can start over. But a prosecutor cannot voluntarily drop a case and then restart it. Double jeopardy forbids it.
Except the kid even stated that he was modding Xboxs exclusively to run backups and homebrew software due to the way that the xbox disc tray scratches up discs. Just because it will be able to run pirated software doesn't mean it will be used like that.
Also, pirated software is not stolen :) Just copied.
your sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.
Aside from the fact that it is entirely possible that the download was done to an external hard drive which got knocked over and suffered a plate crash. It's happened to me before. Hard drives are very fickle when moved while writing especially if the case sucks. Aside from the fact that there'd be no outside damage to the drive, it just wouldn't work.
I didn't destroy any evidence, no sirree. My hard drive just suffered a plate crash the morning I received that letter.
Government's job is also to protect the people from harm, such as clean and safe food, water and air. You DO need regulation to do that.
I was just confused because your response made no sense. Where did either orphiucus or the AC claim they were nothing for you to call them nothing on that basis? Who was cowering or afraid?
Did your mother name you "zeroshade"?
It would be awesome if I could reply "Why, yes. She did!" =P As for "cowering" under a pseudonym. You don't know me so what would knowing my name give you? It would be as informative to you as zeroshade is. I'm not afraid of anything, I just don't see a point in having people who know me such as an employer be able to look up what I do and post on my free time. I use the same pseudonym everywhere so it's actually just as useful as a real name to you. :)
you certainly are a real zero
*clap**clap**clap* Well said my friend, well said. What do you do for an encore?
you're completely pathetic
If I may venture a slight psychological guess, I'd say you're the pathetic one due to your apparent pathological need to put down and insult random people on a message board online who have done nothing but either disagree with you or question and be confused by you. Perhaps, you insult everyone and call everyone pathetic, asking what they are afraid of because you are actually afraid that you yourself are pathetic and worthless. Wouldn't it be great if this were true? It would certainly explain some things. :) But please, go on. It's fun to watch a troll run out of steam.
dude....what?
They might actually go forward with the reclassification. That would be awesome :)
You know it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service.
But it's wrong for a company to use their control of one industry (ISPs providing internet service) to leverage themselves in another industry (ISPs providing for example, streaming video). You even admit that "some will/have tried it" so the question is that you don't find it wrong for an ISP to intentionally slow down or charge extra money from a company that provides a streaming service that competes with their own?
That'll be ineffective and will stiffle[sic] potential innovation.
Actually, the lack of neutrality will stifle innovation. The internet has only prospered until now due to neutrality. As long as the content producer pays for their own bandwidth they can supply to whoever wants to download. Now ISPs want to, in addition to what the content companies will be paying for their own bandwidth, charge them for the privilege of being on their network? Or simply just slow down a competing service so that their service is used more? Give me a break. It will prevent developers from wanting to develop internet applications that may overlap with something provided by an ISP. Ideas like Netflix would go wasted because people will only use what the ISP provides because it would cost much more to use the competing services.
Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that just adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.
I'm sure you also don't like the regulations that enforce clean water and clean air, or maybe the health regulations that help ensure you won't get food poisoning from a restaurant you decide to go to. The original common carrier regulation that was passed in the Telecommunications Act is the reason that the phone industry prospered and grew and innovated.
Net neutrality, in context of what most here on Slashdot speak of it as, is about preventing discrimination and disallowing censorship. Please explain to me how a law or power that effectively says corporations cannot block content from a service and that they cannot discriminate based on the source of said content could possibly be used by the government to control the internet? It would be like saying that the government controls the private sector because of the anti-discrimination regulations for hiring for business. Or the government runs the food industry due to regulations enforcing clean food that is safe to consume.
Your entire argument is predicated on all regulation that you don't like is evil and you should fear anything the government wants to do. In addition you believe the ISPs who claim that net neutrality will stifle innovation (when in fact it will foster it).
But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.
I hope we do get Net Neutrality, when even the "Father of the Internet" Tim Berners-Lee supports it, you have to realize there is credibility in the concept. As for demanding private keys, passwords, instant access to data, etc. That has nothing to do with net neutrality nor could a net neutrality policy be turned into that. It would have to be something entirely separate added in which I would of course object to, as would many people. You are afraid of possible abuse of the regulation. I understand that, I do. Right now, I'm afraid of abuse without the regulation. The difference is your fear is "possible" and may or may not happen. The abuse by ISPs of the market without neutrality is already happening and certain to continue. A properly constructed Network Neutrality policy will address only Net Neutrality and abuses can be watched for and dealt with by the people. Just as anything else.
Besides, as evidenced by the COICA bill, net neutrality is not needed for the government to try to take control of the internet. We don't want government control of the internet, we want preventions against corporate control of the internet.
government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.
Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?
Falcon
Helps to read the whole post.
unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.
I think that covers it.
There is a very large difference between a regulation saying that "Corporations may not take this action" and a regulation that states "the government may legally take this action".
So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?
That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.
because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.
Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.
which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.
Actually, it's partially run by the people by way of juries. Not to mention it is only due to the laws that the courts can allow this sort of thing to happen. Thereby stopping a law that would do just that is a good thing. Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.
Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
In theory, you are correct that the analogy of physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents. In practice however, software patents are granted for ideas. Algorithms. Not specific implementations. That's the problem and why, as a developer, I detest them. If I come up with an idea and implement it, I have to wonder if someone else came up with that idea already and no matter how they implemented it, I can get sued for using the same idea. When you're dealing with software and development, the idea is all what matters. You can implement an algorithm in hundreds of ways some are more efficient than others. However, software patents don't cover a specific implementation of an algorithm, they cover the algorithm itself. It's like patenting a mathematical formula. It shouldn't be allowed because it restricts progress more than any benefit it may provide to the person who came up with it.
In addition, frequently many developers come up with the same idea for the same algorithm at the same time, but worlds apart. Why should one be allowed to use his idea and the other not allowed just because one of them got to the patent office faster? Even though they came up with different ways of actually implementing the idea?