functionality isn't protected by copyright. If they were lazy enough, it might work, but it'd be very difficult to improve. Accusing the patent applicant for defarding the USPTO would probably be a better route.
The problem is that big companies have patents too. They have the resources to get more patents than the small companies, and unless they are completely stagnated, it is giving them a stronger competitive advantage than without patents. Without some kind of patent system where acquisition of patents is somehow more difficult for large companies than startups, I don't think there's a way to not have a patent system generally tip the system in the hands of the big companies more than a system without patents. Non-practicing entities can avoid this trap, but that's usually not where the big money is at, and it does nothing to provide actual competition to the market.
'Intellectual property' is not an American concept. England is probably the most to blame, but they were going from arbitrary monopolies granted by the king to moderately logical monopolies that somewhat made sense given the primitive state of economics and psychology at the time. The problem is that we haven't progressed, and that we've had escalation occur, often through racheting mechanisms aimed at harmonization.
You misunderstand me. This is a stupid idea if implemented on a huge scale, and it already exists to some extent with PBS, federal research, reports, and such. My point is that it's a way for the government to interfere that is far less stupid than copyright. We don't inherently need to get the government to interfere, but if we do, copyright is about the worst way to do it.
Actually, scarcity not what copyright is about. After all, sans copyright, non-disclosure agreements could fulfill the same purpose. Every purchase would be accompanied with a contract. The lack of standard terms would mean libraries would have to ascribe to the strictest terms or that they would cease to exist.
NDAs aren't effective for end users, and tracking the leaks is going to be nearly impossible. That's why NDAs are generally done on very small scale.
Which are?
Product placement is already quite popular even within copyright. Movies could be subsidized by movie theaters in exchange for getting copies earlier than competing chains. Movie tickets are loss leaders for them, and their revenue is popcorn. Things like kickstarter are a good model for fundraising, and subscription models would probably be effective as well. Musicians generally make the lion's share of their money from live performances.
Some. We've had a huge amount more since then. Similar to how the industrial revolution started off with secrets, but kicked into gear after patents were invented.
Most works that were considered a masterpiece were before copyright. But, this is where proponents of 'IP' cheat. Copyright and patents have more or less moved in only one direction over time, so our scientific controls on the subject are rather limited, but a lot of the data we have suggests that their effects are neutral or negative in most situations. However, the future was generally better than the past even when clearly oppressive policies were in place, like the censorship policies implemented after the invention of the printing press. Media conglomerates can point to the future, where there is greater literacy, a lower cost of production, and more effective methods of distribution, and say that's it's better than the past as evidence. They also tend to do the same thing with developing countries while neglecting that adopting these institutions results in much more favorable trade relations with developed countries.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that IF we are going to use government mechanisms to push creative activity, then we should do it through monetary grants instead of monopolies, because government backed monopolies are pretty much the worst method of economic incentive. Utilities are about the only place they make any kind of sense, and with those, it's stupid for them to not be member-owned.
it can happen without providing government backed monopolies. Even If we are going with the government backed route, direct funding through something like grants would probably be more sensible.
Don't you know? Copyleft and public licenses undermine 'intellectual property.' It doesn't have to make sense, since limiting both free culture and copyright infringement are in the interests of the same groups. Attempts have been made to tie torrents to terrorism, although it's quite likely a sinle legit copy of CS5 contributes more to organized crime than a single copy downloaded on TPB.
Those kids could, you know, just not have a copy of the music. I don't know where this divine right to have stuff comes from.
Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.
Because, absent artificial scarcity, how else can an author or programmer make money?
Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams. We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.
Using baseball analogies seems so out of touch. Even Americans as a whole don't really care that much about baseball anymore. Maybe yellow cards or fouls would be more appropriate.
I thought they weren't going to bother with it on account of not getting the geographical designators. Freedom on the internet may be dead, but at least my Kraft Parmesan cheese doesn't have to be renamed.
Even that was shorter than the debate that has already occurred, and functional Unix is the most important one in most scenarios. GNU/Linux and the *BSDs have taken over many of the strongholds of branded Unix because of this.
Also, in the case of the Novell acquisition, I would think that genetic Unix would be what actually matters for the copyright (since I presume this is over the rights to AT&T Unix), and functional Unix for the patents. Branded Unix is actually the least relevant here since complete compliance to a specification doesn't factor in to this in a relevant way.
Saying that "GNU/Linux isn't branded Unix" is much more clear than "GNU/Linux is not Unix." I personally put more stock in the opinion of one of the main developers of the original system than the party that happens to own the trademark right now, but even if you feel differently, you can still properly differentiate what you mean and never need to argue.
Dennis Ritchie includes GNU/Linux when speaking of Unix. Just the word 'Unix' is rather ambiguous. I generally use four sets of terms and try to be specific whenever possible:
1. AT&T UNIX or Bell Labs UNIX. The operating system developed by AT&T/Bell Labs (SysV, Version 7 UNIX)
2. Genetic UNIX. Any operating system that can trace it's history to AT&T UNIX.
3. Branded UNIX or SUS. Any operating system that meets the Single Unix Specification and pays the necessary fees.
4. Unix-like, functional Unix, or *nix. Any operating system that is designed to be have the same functionality and overall design as AT&T UNIX.
GNU/Linux only meets the terms of functional Unix, but being functional Unix is more important than being branded or genetic Unix in most usage, so it's not uncommon to use Unix just to describe functional Unix.
MS has two likely choices for patents they want to acquire:
1. patents their competitors infringe
2. patents they infringe
With the large number of patents involved there were probably quite a few of both.
Being functionally similar to GNU/Linux, the patents of Unix vendors are quite likely to cover GNU/Linux. Windows is much further away, and yet GNU/Linux allegedly infringes hundreds of MS patents. I'm not particularly worried because as I understand it anything that Novell is an author of or distributes that is under the GPL would be safe from Novell's patents even if said patents are sold.
As for porting things to BSD, that wouldn't help anything, especially since the *BSDs have a decent amount of code in common with Unix, and doesn't have a patent clause.
it's very hard to convince them to want something against their better interests
No, it isn't. What's difficult is getting someone to buy something they don't think is in their better interests. However, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", and the same is likely true of the public of any country. Most people are dumb, and if you can fool lots of people, you can make lots of money (although certain kinds of trickery can result in legal punishment). Such behavior is why we use 'snake oil' as a derogatory term.
Slashdot Mirror
functionality isn't protected by copyright. If they were lazy enough, it might work, but it'd be very difficult to improve. Accusing the patent applicant for defarding the USPTO would probably be a better route.
The problem is that big companies have patents too. They have the resources to get more patents than the small companies, and unless they are completely stagnated, it is giving them a stronger competitive advantage than without patents. Without some kind of patent system where acquisition of patents is somehow more difficult for large companies than startups, I don't think there's a way to not have a patent system generally tip the system in the hands of the big companies more than a system without patents. Non-practicing entities can avoid this trap, but that's usually not where the big money is at, and it does nothing to provide actual competition to the market.
'Intellectual property' is not an American concept. England is probably the most to blame, but they were going from arbitrary monopolies granted by the king to moderately logical monopolies that somewhat made sense given the primitive state of economics and psychology at the time. The problem is that we haven't progressed, and that we've had escalation occur, often through racheting mechanisms aimed at harmonization.
You misunderstand me. This is a stupid idea if implemented on a huge scale, and it already exists to some extent with PBS, federal research, reports, and such. My point is that it's a way for the government to interfere that is far less stupid than copyright. We don't inherently need to get the government to interfere, but if we do, copyright is about the worst way to do it.
NDAs aren't effective for end users, and tracking the leaks is going to be nearly impossible. That's why NDAs are generally done on very small scale.
Product placement is already quite popular even within copyright. Movies could be subsidized by movie theaters in exchange for getting copies earlier than competing chains. Movie tickets are loss leaders for them, and their revenue is popcorn. Things like kickstarter are a good model for fundraising, and subscription models would probably be effective as well. Musicians generally make the lion's share of their money from live performances.
Most works that were considered a masterpiece were before copyright. But, this is where proponents of 'IP' cheat. Copyright and patents have more or less moved in only one direction over time, so our scientific controls on the subject are rather limited, but a lot of the data we have suggests that their effects are neutral or negative in most situations. However, the future was generally better than the past even when clearly oppressive policies were in place, like the censorship policies implemented after the invention of the printing press. Media conglomerates can point to the future, where there is greater literacy, a lower cost of production, and more effective methods of distribution, and say that's it's better than the past as evidence. They also tend to do the same thing with developing countries while neglecting that adopting these institutions results in much more favorable trade relations with developed countries.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that IF we are going to use government mechanisms to push creative activity, then we should do it through monetary grants instead of monopolies, because government backed monopolies are pretty much the worst method of economic incentive. Utilities are about the only place they make any kind of sense, and with those, it's stupid for them to not be member-owned.
it can happen without providing government backed monopolies. Even If we are going with the government backed route, direct funding through something like grants would probably be more sensible.
Don't you know? Copyleft and public licenses undermine 'intellectual property.' It doesn't have to make sense, since limiting both free culture and copyright infringement are in the interests of the same groups. Attempts have been made to tie torrents to terrorism, although it's quite likely a sinle legit copy of CS5 contributes more to organized crime than a single copy downloaded on TPB.
EU parliament http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/european-parliament-passes-anti-acta-declaration.ars
http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=1189&lang=en Found it
I seem to recall the EU parliament complaining about the negotiations being secret.
A fan of datacore, are we?
Stopping someone from doing something that doesn't affect others is generally what needs a justification. The scarcity is what we are creating, so that is what needs something to back it up.
Several viable methods are available for authors to get money, and many would do things for the love of doing them, for fame, or because it enables other revenue streams. We had books and music before the Statute of Anne, after all.
Using baseball analogies seems so out of touch. Even Americans as a whole don't really care that much about baseball anymore. Maybe yellow cards or fouls would be more appropriate.
I thought they weren't going to bother with it on account of not getting the geographical designators. Freedom on the internet may be dead, but at least my Kraft Parmesan cheese doesn't have to be renamed.
Even that was shorter than the debate that has already occurred, and functional Unix is the most important one in most scenarios. GNU/Linux and the *BSDs have taken over many of the strongholds of branded Unix because of this. Also, in the case of the Novell acquisition, I would think that genetic Unix would be what actually matters for the copyright (since I presume this is over the rights to AT&T Unix), and functional Unix for the patents. Branded Unix is actually the least relevant here since complete compliance to a specification doesn't factor in to this in a relevant way.
Saying that "GNU/Linux isn't branded Unix" is much more clear than "GNU/Linux is not Unix." I personally put more stock in the opinion of one of the main developers of the original system than the party that happens to own the trademark right now, but even if you feel differently, you can still properly differentiate what you mean and never need to argue.
Dennis Ritchie includes GNU/Linux when speaking of Unix. Just the word 'Unix' is rather ambiguous. I generally use four sets of terms and try to be specific whenever possible:
1. AT&T UNIX or Bell Labs UNIX. The operating system developed by AT&T/Bell Labs (SysV, Version 7 UNIX)
2. Genetic UNIX. Any operating system that can trace it's history to AT&T UNIX.
3. Branded UNIX or SUS. Any operating system that meets the Single Unix Specification and pays the necessary fees.
4. Unix-like, functional Unix, or *nix. Any operating system that is designed to be have the same functionality and overall design as AT&T UNIX.
GNU/Linux only meets the terms of functional Unix, but being functional Unix is more important than being branded or genetic Unix in most usage, so it's not uncommon to use Unix just to describe functional Unix.
No, they sold the rights to SCO, and they were just a licensee of V7 Unix
You might want to see a doctor about that. It sounds like you may have some kind of condition.
MS has two likely choices for patents they want to acquire:
1. patents their competitors infringe
2. patents they infringe
With the large number of patents involved there were probably quite a few of both.
Some things are just TOO scary
Being functionally similar to GNU/Linux, the patents of Unix vendors are quite likely to cover GNU/Linux. Windows is much further away, and yet GNU/Linux allegedly infringes hundreds of MS patents. I'm not particularly worried because as I understand it anything that Novell is an author of or distributes that is under the GPL would be safe from Novell's patents even if said patents are sold. As for porting things to BSD, that wouldn't help anything, especially since the *BSDs have a decent amount of code in common with Unix, and doesn't have a patent clause.
No, it isn't. What's difficult is getting someone to buy something they don't think is in their better interests. However, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", and the same is likely true of the public of any country. Most people are dumb, and if you can fool lots of people, you can make lots of money (although certain kinds of trickery can result in legal punishment). Such behavior is why we use 'snake oil' as a derogatory term.
Perhaps the publishers have some more fast-talking lawyers of their own to limit their liability