So, you go to a lot of trouble to defend the sig which pissed someone off -- but your sig is now gone. What was it? It seems odd to be so willing to defend it and then deep six it at the same time.
To your last point, yes, anyone who believes that the US was complicit in 9/11 is an idiot, regardless of how many people share the delusion. Although I suspect most of the people who profess to hold this belief are nothing more than trolls looking to stir something up.
On the points you made about the situation at the end of WWII: what I've read about the history of the time confirms all of your points except the one about our ships being able to get close enough to shell Japan without response -- that doesn't sound right, and it also happens to be the one piece you failed to find a reference for when pushed. Where did you read that? Regardless, your initial point is right -- it was unnecessary to drop the bombs on Japan and the decision appears to have had more to do with concerns about the Soviet Union post-WWII.
I've just got to poke my nose in here, as this is a pet peave of mine. The abstract you linked to was able to find three significant digits of results in their survey of 32 people. This is a classic example of why an extra large dose of skepticism is warranted when it comes to psychologists and others in the "soft sciences" publishing statistical research.
If you actually read the PDF, you will see that you (and Wired, for that matter) are jumping to conclusions. The chart showing Vulcan Ventures (and Microsoft, for that matter) is a chart of data from PlacementTracker showing the overall number of PIPE deals. The vast majority of which have nothing to do with Baystar. This paper is Baystar's way of convincing people that PIPE transactions are a good thing.
None of which is to say that Vulcan and/or Microsoft don't invest through Baystar -- just that this PDF says nothing about it.
Do you want to be an asshole? No then buy four waste bins and one basket. 1 for paper. 1 for glass. 1 for food remains and finally one for all the rest. The basket is for all the stuff like old tv's fridges batteries and the like. How much time will it cost you to seperate them? Zero. How much time will it cost you to empty them? 1 hour extra per week max. Small price to pay for not being an asshole.
Now there is impeccable logic. Seriously, the fact that most environmental activists I know come off sounding like you (i.e. a pompous idiot) is the reason I cringe when recycling anything and I feel a small secret joy when I throw an aluminum can into the trash. My next can's dedicated to you, dude!
Because Caldera is located in Utah. State of incorporation is not the same as location of the business. Many (perhaps most, not sure) corporations incorporate in Delaware (I've done it myself, though I have never been to Delaware), because of that state's well-developed body of commercial law. Attorneys (I am one) tend to be conservative, and selecting Delaware as the state of incorporation is sort of like picking Microsoft or Intel -- there is a perception that no one can fault you for making the "safe" choice.
Yep, it works with VMware. That's how I installed it, after reading the earlier/. story. One thing, though, you need to turn off the "hardware acceleration" in the VM configuration while starting the program (after that, you can turn acceleration back on).
After reading the earlier stories about locking to a particular machine, and possibly installing spyware, I figured I'd either return the thing or install it under VMware. The geek in me won out, so I decided to see how it'd work under VMware. I'm sure glad I didn't install it on a PC directly.
So, even a layperson can see there is no infringement - BUT- in the new universe of corporate-lawyer as bullies , Phoenix Bios only has to accuse Phoenix Web-Browser in order that the Browser people would have to change the name, *because* they havnt the $ resources to buy their justice.
I am an intellectual property attorney, and I've represented a lot of the big tech companies. And I... agree with you wholeheartedly.
The mentality of corporate law departments, and even worse, their outside counsel, is often one that can only be described as bullying. Nevermind that the money spent pursuing this is of absolutely no benefit to the BIOS company or its shareholders. There are lawyers whose job it is to find and squash any potential trademark infringers. They're just happy to have "found" one in order to make their jobs look useful.
I've seen a lot of "little guys" (including my next-door neighbor) get pushed around by big companies wielding overbroad theories of trademark infringement. It is a real problem.
I do law part time. All of the agreements I have to work on are in Word format, and I haven't (yet) had luck with any of the word processors that run on Linux. Some open some Word documents, but it's a hassle to reboot to Windows to open a document.
I also do programming part time. My current project is an intranet application to manage the review and redaction of electronic documents. The import utility has to run native Windows applications (like MS Office), but the server is on Linux. Even so, the application has to work well with Internet Explorer, so even when I'm working on the server, I've got to keep Windows up on my desktop system for testing.
Then, of course, there are the games. If Battlezone II and X-Wing Alliance were on Linux, I'd be in heaven.
I think it is interesting that in a story submission about the problems with patents there is a link to Amazon. Not only did they sue Barnes and Noble over the 1-Click patent, but we recently found out that they are still actively patenting all kinds of obvious stuff.
I would have much preferred the link point to the book on the Barnes and Noble site. I don't know for a fact that they aren't engaging in the same kind of ridiculous patenting, but as the target of the 1-Click suit, they get all of my on-line book and music business. I had been a regular customer of Amazon's before the suit, and can gladly report that I have never bought from them since.
It doesn't work that way. If the "inventor" can show that he had the idea prior to someone else publicly disclosing it, he can still win. He has up to one year after public disclosure to file a patent, so something that shows up two months before his filing is very unlikely to dispose of the patent.
Also, this patent may claim priority from some earlier patent application(s) (haven't looked, don't know) -- it can be difficult to figure out the actual priority date. It may be earlier than one year ahead of the filing date.
And yes, I am a former patent attorney, although I have since seen the light and no longer do that.
The PNG standard was pored over with a fine-toothed comb by the FSF's lawyers, and so far it appears to be clean, which is about as good as you can reasonably expect.
From the sounds of it, the developers of Ogg Vorbis have done as much as can be reasonably expected. Even more. I am glad to hear it. My point, however, still stands. The best you could possibly do (examine every potentially relevant patent that has been issued) will not only cost ridiculous amounts of money, but will not ensure that your technology is not infringing someone's patent. "Submarine patents" pop out of the Patent Office every week, and their prior art dates go back at least a few years, and often very many years.
And as for the cost, I was recently involved with a company that is trying to design around the patents of just one specific company. The fees to patent attorneys run into millions of dollars per year. And no particular effort is being made to avoid patents generally, just those that are held by one particular company. I don't know the details of the AOL and FSF analysis, but having done this type of work for clients, I am willing to bet that their opinion is limited to a very limited number of patents held by a very limited number of companies. Don't take my word for it, ask them.
My statement in my original post, that this technology probably does infringe someone's patent, holds -- too many fundamental concepts in computer science are currently patented. Just because the holders of those patents are not actively pursuing them doesn't mean they're not out there. The patent thicket is growing more dangerous every day, and I just want developers to be aware of it.
I have done those patent searches on behalf of clients when I was a patent attorney. I am telling you that given the very large number of potentially relevant patents, you can't know that there is no overlap with currently issued patents.
More importantly, the patents which are issued by the PTO every Tuesday date back at least a couple of years, and often quite a few years -- these patents applications are not available for your patent attorneys to consult until they issue.
I am not saying this to rain on anyone's parade. I am a software develper and actively contribute my software to the free software movement. I just wish that there was more understanding among developers just how much of a problem patents will cause in the near future.
PNG is a royalty free community owned format, similar to Ogg Vorbis...
There is a lot of misunderstanding in the open source community as to how patents work. The claims made by Ogg Vorbis (i.e. it is patent free) are extremely unlikely to be true. Similarly, it is unlikely that the PNG format is not patented by someone.
The problem is that people tend to think of patents in much the same way that they think of copyrights. With copyrights, if a developer creates something without reference to the work of others, that developer is free and clear of other's copyrights, and can make it freely available. Not so with patents. A developer may create a new technology (PNG, Ogg Vorbis, etc), and that developer may choose to not patent it, but that technology is not free and clear of patents unless nobody has patented anything that is used in any part of the technology. If any part of your "new" idea has been thought of before, you're not clear of patent issues. Given the sheer number of software patents being filed and issued, given the incredibly broad claims that are being allowed, and given the fact that you don't have access to what patents are pending in the patent office (generally for a few years) just waiting to pop up, nobody can back up a statement such as, "I developed this, and it is patent-free."
I truly wish it were otherwise. As a former patent attorney, I have been watching the coming train wreck for a while now. It is only a matter of time before major chunks of what the open source community relies on turns out to be patented and owned by non-too-friendly people.
If you're trying to find, say, the difference of a series of numbers that have been rounded, your results will be inconsistent with reality. That's a bug, not a feature.
I hope this is just a troll (in which case I should be ashamed for answering, I know).
You're kidding, right? If you are rounding numbers you are making sure they are inconsistent with reality.
Plus, if you do rounding the grade-school way (i.e..5 always rounds up), you've just added bias to your result -- less reality for no extra charge! What a bargain.
This is what happens when people believe that a basic understanding of math (or the real world generally) is not necessary to write quality software.
Before coming to my senses, I was a patent attorney. The story described in the article where IBM was on a shakedown mission rings true. I have seen both IBM and Lucent use exactly this technique many times (including with clients of mine).
They don't really mind when you show them that your client doesn't infringe. They are perfectly willing to go get another bunch of patents and make you go through those. Understand what is going on here: the patent attorneys take a lot of time going through all these patents to show that they don't apply. Lawyers are expensive -- eventually the client realizes that IBM or Lucent isn't going away, and they pay up. Mind you, in all of the cases I have direct knowledge of, there was never any reason to believe that any of the patents were infringed. They seemed to be a random assortment that were generally in the same technical field as the victim company. But the result is always the same -- a payoff to the 800 pound gorilla.
It is sick, but true.
By the way, the author of the article used to work at the firm where I got my start (Fenwick & West). He got booted for being too much of an asshole -- and among lawyers, that is saying a lot. Wired did a cover story on him back around '97.
Okay, at this point you're just playing word games. The point the earlier poster made about the psychology of religion seems pretty straight-forward:
I'm an average person. I look at the world, I see how things work. I don't have perfect knowledge, but through observation of the world around me I am able to continually correct mistakes in my understanding of the world. In short, I'm coming to understand, more or less, how things generally work.
But there's this problem. A lot of other folks believe in these other-worldly characters, some of whom (they say) have sentenced me to an eternity of torment because I don't believe in them. That's a pretty nasty claim, probably worth looking into.
After looking into it a bit, it appears to me (you have to make up your own minds) that these beliefs are most likely just a matter of wishful thinking and cultural influences. In short, the notion of a widespread need to believe in things like religion (regardless of whether it is a true description of the world) seems to fit my observations of the world more than the notion that any of these beliefs are true.
So, a psychological understanding of religion is helpful in trying to figure out what is going on in the world, but not out of some misguided attempt to disprove religion. I'm not influenced by any "strong interest in explaining religion through psychology", I just find it a useful indicator in my own quest at figuring out this world.
-Steve
Not Necessary or Useful
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Being a former intellectual property attorney, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this very issue. I have to disagree with the notion expressed by epsalon in the original posting:
However, nullifying all IP laws is IMHO a bit too strong, because there will be no incentive to create anything for mass market sale except out of goodwill, or for leveraging other revenue (aka Linux).
At the end of the day, all copyright and patent laws are an attempt to create some incentive for certain kinds of creation, at the expense of limiting the right of the public to use certain ideas. In essence, this is nothing more than a subsidy (the IP owner gains a limited monopoly right, the public loses freedom of action with regard to the subject of that monopoly). Just because the "price" of the subsidy paid by the public is not directly monetary doesn't mean that it is any less of a subsidy.
A lot of people who (in my opinion, correctly) reject the notion of government subsidies as unnecessary and, on balance, harmful to society still accept the notion of IP because they don't see it for what it is. The backers of IP laws would have you believe that a world without IP laws would be a bleak, gray unhappy place with no creativity. Of course, the world before IP laws looked nothing like that, and the world won't look like that when people finally undo these mistakes of history.
-Steve
Re:The laws we had 10 years ago
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Didn't the patent office used to more-or-less do their job correctly back then too?
Unfortunately, no (not if your conception of what they should be doing is anything like mine). The difference is this: a few decades ago, it was not generally thought that you could patent software or methods of doing business, so very few patents were applied for, and granted, for these things. Today, these areas are patented quite regularly, these areas impact the growing information technology sector, and people are up-in-arms about it.
The problem, however, is not that there is something intrinsically worse about patenting software or methods of doing business, it is just that the impact of patents (which is to screw lots of people for the benefit of a few) are felt by many more people today, given the widespread patenting in these areas. While it may have seemed like the patent system worked a few decades ago, you likely wouldn't think that if you were one of the people who had their entire business taken away because of a patent you had never heard of (and had no reason to know of). Before we jump to the conclusion that patents are just fine over there, in that other field where we don't try to make our living, stop to think how you'd feel if you were one of the folks working in that field.
I am happy to see people waking up to the fact that something is terribly wrong with the patent system, but just because fewer people got ensared by it back in the good 'ole days doesn't mean that it was any better (structurally) than it is today.
Just had to chime to to say that I agree with everything you wrote. I also rented the Gattaca knowing nothing more about it than that several people had told me it was good. I loved it and bought the DVD and the soundtrack (which fits the movie perfectly).
For those who haven't heard of Gattaca, don't go looking for too much information on it (I have noticed several "spoilers" in comments here), just rent it and watch it.
Also, are you saying that the no-reverse-engineering clauses actually carry any real weight? I was under the impression that they're on pretty shaky ground.
As far as I know, reverse engineering clauses have not been tested in court, but I have never seen a good argument for why they would not be upheld in the U.S. (some European countries may have laws that protect reverse engineering -- those protections may trump EULAs).
There is a lot of mythology about EULAs floating around on the Internet that somehow becomes common wisdom. Don't assume that any of it is necessarily true.
The long and the short of it is: I replied too quickly. The main thrust of what I was trying to say (voiding the EULA doesn't get you much) is probably right, but I goofed on the use==infringement point. Mea culpa.
On second though, I believe you are right, although not because of anything related to the first sale doctrine. Section 117 of the copyright statute does permit use of a copy of software by the owner of that copy, without requiring a license grant.
I warned you that what I wrote was off the top of my head.:-)
The main point I was making, though, is true -- not much is gained by voiding the EULA.
I am a lawyer, but what I'm about to say is not legal advice. I would need to look at specific statutes and case law to come up with a specific answer -- this is just off the top of my head.
In most states, a contract entered into by a minor is voidable by the minor, rather than void. That means that the minor can (before reaching the age of majority, I believe) decide to declare the contract void, and then it is as if the contract had never been entered into. This doesn't apply to certain contracts, such as purchases of "necessaries".
So, without having looked at how this may have been applied with respect to licenses, my guess would be that a minor could declare a EULA that has been agreed to as "void". But what does that get you? Using the software without a license would likely constitute copyright infringement, and being a minor doesn't help you there. No EULA means no license, so use of the software may be off limits.
Remember, the EULA is not required to make it illegal to make copies of software for friends -- copyright does that all by itself. The only reasonable purposes for EULAs that I've ever heard of are warranty disclaimers, limitation of liability, and no-reverse-engineering clauses. Copyright law gives the publisher everything else they need.
Of course, if anyone has any idea what the actual case law is with regard to minors and EULAs, they should pipe up, as I may very well be wrong. (Have I covered myself enough?)
Slashdot Mirror
So, you go to a lot of trouble to defend the sig which pissed someone off -- but your sig is now gone. What was it? It seems odd to be so willing to defend it and then deep six it at the same time.
To your last point, yes, anyone who believes that the US was complicit in 9/11 is an idiot, regardless of how many people share the delusion. Although I suspect most of the people who profess to hold this belief are nothing more than trolls looking to stir something up.
On the points you made about the situation at the end of WWII: what I've read about the history of the time confirms all of your points except the one about our ships being able to get close enough to shell Japan without response -- that doesn't sound right, and it also happens to be the one piece you failed to find a reference for when pushed. Where did you read that? Regardless, your initial point is right -- it was unnecessary to drop the bombs on Japan and the decision appears to have had more to do with concerns about the Soviet Union post-WWII.
I've just got to poke my nose in here, as this is a pet peave of mine. The abstract you linked to was able to find three significant digits of results in their survey of 32 people. This is a classic example of why an extra large dose of skepticism is warranted when it comes to psychologists and others in the "soft sciences" publishing statistical research.
-Steve
If you actually read the PDF, you will see that you (and Wired, for that matter) are jumping to conclusions. The chart showing Vulcan Ventures (and Microsoft, for that matter) is a chart of data from PlacementTracker showing the overall number of PIPE deals. The vast majority of which have nothing to do with Baystar. This paper is Baystar's way of convincing people that PIPE transactions are a good thing.
None of which is to say that Vulcan and/or Microsoft don't invest through Baystar -- just that this PDF says nothing about it.
-Steve
Do you want to be an asshole? No then buy four waste bins and one basket. 1 for paper. 1 for glass. 1 for food remains and finally one for all the rest. The basket is for all the stuff like old tv's fridges batteries and the like. How much time will it cost you to seperate them? Zero. How much time will it cost you to empty them? 1 hour extra per week max. Small price to pay for not being an asshole.
Now there is impeccable logic. Seriously, the fact that most environmental activists I know come off sounding like you (i.e. a pompous idiot) is the reason I cringe when recycling anything and I feel a small secret joy when I throw an aluminum can into the trash. My next can's dedicated to you, dude!
-Steve
Because Caldera is located in Utah. State of incorporation is not the same as location of the business. Many (perhaps most, not sure) corporations incorporate in Delaware (I've done it myself, though I have never been to Delaware), because of that state's well-developed body of commercial law. Attorneys (I am one) tend to be conservative, and selecting Delaware as the state of incorporation is sort of like picking Microsoft or Intel -- there is a perception that no one can fault you for making the "safe" choice.
--Steve
Yep, it works with VMware. That's how I installed it, after reading the earlier /. story. One thing, though, you need to turn off the "hardware acceleration" in the VM configuration while starting the program (after that, you can turn acceleration back on).
After reading the earlier stories about locking to a particular machine, and possibly installing spyware, I figured I'd either return the thing or install it under VMware. The geek in me won out, so I decided to see how it'd work under VMware. I'm sure glad I didn't install it on a PC directly.
-Steve
So, even a layperson can see there is no infringement - BUT- in the new universe of corporate-lawyer as bullies , Phoenix Bios only has to accuse Phoenix Web-Browser in order that the Browser people would have to change the name, *because* they havnt the $ resources to buy their justice.
I am an intellectual property attorney, and I've represented a lot of the big tech companies. And I... agree with you wholeheartedly.
The mentality of corporate law departments, and even worse, their outside counsel, is often one that can only be described as bullying. Nevermind that the money spent pursuing this is of absolutely no benefit to the BIOS company or its shareholders. There are lawyers whose job it is to find and squash any potential trademark infringers. They're just happy to have "found" one in order to make their jobs look useful.
I've seen a lot of "little guys" (including my next-door neighbor) get pushed around by big companies wielding overbroad theories of trademark infringement. It is a real problem.
-Steve
I do law part time. All of the agreements I have to work on are in Word format, and I haven't (yet) had luck with any of the word processors that run on Linux. Some open some Word documents, but it's a hassle to reboot to Windows to open a document.
I also do programming part time. My current project is an intranet application to manage the review and redaction of electronic documents. The import utility has to run native Windows applications (like MS Office), but the server is on Linux. Even so, the application has to work well with Internet Explorer, so even when I'm working on the server, I've got to keep Windows up on my desktop system for testing.
Then, of course, there are the games. If Battlezone II and X-Wing Alliance were on Linux, I'd be in heaven.
-Steve
German...
"Scorpion Project"
Well, Rock Me Like a Hurricane! I didn't even know they were still around. What's this about them walking around in the desert, though?
-Steve
I think it is interesting that in a story submission about the problems with patents there is a link to Amazon. Not only did they sue Barnes and Noble over the 1-Click patent, but we recently found out that they are still actively patenting all kinds of obvious stuff.
I would have much preferred the link point to the book on the Barnes and Noble site. I don't know for a fact that they aren't engaging in the same kind of ridiculous patenting, but as the target of the 1-Click suit, they get all of my on-line book and music business. I had been a regular customer of Amazon's before the suit, and can gladly report that I have never bought from them since.
-Steve
It doesn't work that way. If the "inventor" can show that he had the idea prior to someone else publicly disclosing it, he can still win. He has up to one year after public disclosure to file a patent, so something that shows up two months before his filing is very unlikely to dispose of the patent.
Also, this patent may claim priority from some earlier patent application(s) (haven't looked, don't know) -- it can be difficult to figure out the actual priority date. It may be earlier than one year ahead of the filing date.
And yes, I am a former patent attorney, although I have since seen the light and no longer do that.
-Steve
I have thought in terms of patent pools, but as you point out, it only works for companies with a lot of money.
Personally, I don't see any solution. I just threw up my hands and got into a different line of work.
-Steve
The PNG standard was pored over with a fine-toothed comb by the FSF's lawyers, and so far it appears to be clean, which is about as good as you can reasonably expect.
From the sounds of it, the developers of Ogg Vorbis have done as much as can be reasonably expected. Even more. I am glad to hear it. My point, however, still stands. The best you could possibly do (examine every potentially relevant patent that has been issued) will not only cost ridiculous amounts of money, but will not ensure that your technology is not infringing someone's patent. "Submarine patents" pop out of the Patent Office every week, and their prior art dates go back at least a few years, and often very many years.
And as for the cost, I was recently involved with a company that is trying to design around the patents of just one specific company. The fees to patent attorneys run into millions of dollars per year. And no particular effort is being made to avoid patents generally, just those that are held by one particular company. I don't know the details of the AOL and FSF analysis, but having done this type of work for clients, I am willing to bet that their opinion is limited to a very limited number of patents held by a very limited number of companies. Don't take my word for it, ask them.
My statement in my original post, that this technology probably does infringe someone's patent, holds -- too many fundamental concepts in computer science are currently patented. Just because the holders of those patents are not actively pursuing them doesn't mean they're not out there. The patent thicket is growing more dangerous every day, and I just want developers to be aware of it.
-Steve
I have done those patent searches on behalf of clients when I was a patent attorney. I am telling you that given the very large number of potentially relevant patents, you can't know that there is no overlap with currently issued patents.
More importantly, the patents which are issued by the PTO every Tuesday date back at least a couple of years, and often quite a few years -- these patents applications are not available for your patent attorneys to consult until they issue.
I am not saying this to rain on anyone's parade. I am a software develper and actively contribute my software to the free software movement. I just wish that there was more understanding among developers just how much of a problem patents will cause in the near future.
-Steve
PNG is a royalty free community owned format, similar to Ogg Vorbis...
There is a lot of misunderstanding in the open source community as to how patents work. The claims made by Ogg Vorbis (i.e. it is patent free) are extremely unlikely to be true. Similarly, it is unlikely that the PNG format is not patented by someone.
The problem is that people tend to think of patents in much the same way that they think of copyrights. With copyrights, if a developer creates something without reference to the work of others, that developer is free and clear of other's copyrights, and can make it freely available. Not so with patents. A developer may create a new technology (PNG, Ogg Vorbis, etc), and that developer may choose to not patent it, but that technology is not free and clear of patents unless nobody has patented anything that is used in any part of the technology. If any part of your "new" idea has been thought of before, you're not clear of patent issues. Given the sheer number of software patents being filed and issued, given the incredibly broad claims that are being allowed, and given the fact that you don't have access to what patents are pending in the patent office (generally for a few years) just waiting to pop up, nobody can back up a statement such as, "I developed this, and it is patent-free."
I truly wish it were otherwise. As a former patent attorney, I have been watching the coming train wreck for a while now. It is only a matter of time before major chunks of what the open source community relies on turns out to be patented and owned by non-too-friendly people.
-Steve
If you're trying to find, say, the difference of a series of numbers that have been rounded, your results will be inconsistent with reality. That's a bug, not a feature.
I hope this is just a troll (in which case I should be ashamed for answering, I know).
You're kidding, right? If you are rounding numbers you are making sure they are inconsistent with reality.
Plus, if you do rounding the grade-school way (i.e. .5 always rounds up), you've just added bias to your result -- less reality for no extra charge! What a bargain.
This is what happens when people believe that a basic understanding of math (or the real world generally) is not necessary to write quality software.
-Steve
Before coming to my senses, I was a patent attorney. The story described in the article where IBM was on a shakedown mission rings true. I have seen both IBM and Lucent use exactly this technique many times (including with clients of mine).
They don't really mind when you show them that your client doesn't infringe. They are perfectly willing to go get another bunch of patents and make you go through those. Understand what is going on here: the patent attorneys take a lot of time going through all these patents to show that they don't apply. Lawyers are expensive -- eventually the client realizes that IBM or Lucent isn't going away, and they pay up. Mind you, in all of the cases I have direct knowledge of, there was never any reason to believe that any of the patents were infringed. They seemed to be a random assortment that were generally in the same technical field as the victim company. But the result is always the same -- a payoff to the 800 pound gorilla.
It is sick, but true.
By the way, the author of the article used to work at the firm where I got my start (Fenwick & West). He got booted for being too much of an asshole -- and among lawyers, that is saying a lot. Wired did a cover story on him back around '97.
-Steve
Okay, at this point you're just playing word games. The point the earlier poster made about the psychology of religion seems pretty straight-forward:
I'm an average person. I look at the world, I see how things work. I don't have perfect knowledge, but through observation of the world around me I am able to continually correct mistakes in my understanding of the world. In short, I'm coming to understand, more or less, how things generally work.
But there's this problem. A lot of other folks believe in these other-worldly characters, some of whom (they say) have sentenced me to an eternity of torment because I don't believe in them. That's a pretty nasty claim, probably worth looking into.
After looking into it a bit, it appears to me (you have to make up your own minds) that these beliefs are most likely just a matter of wishful thinking and cultural influences. In short, the notion of a widespread need to believe in things like religion (regardless of whether it is a true description of the world) seems to fit my observations of the world more than the notion that any of these beliefs are true.
So, a psychological understanding of religion is helpful in trying to figure out what is going on in the world, but not out of some misguided attempt to disprove religion. I'm not influenced by any "strong interest in explaining religion through psychology", I just find it a useful indicator in my own quest at figuring out this world.
-Steve
Being a former intellectual property attorney, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this very issue. I have to disagree with the notion expressed by epsalon in the original posting:
However, nullifying all IP laws is IMHO a bit too strong, because there will be no incentive to create anything for mass market sale except out of goodwill, or for leveraging other revenue (aka Linux).
At the end of the day, all copyright and patent laws are an attempt to create some incentive for certain kinds of creation, at the expense of limiting the right of the public to use certain ideas. In essence, this is nothing more than a subsidy (the IP owner gains a limited monopoly right, the public loses freedom of action with regard to the subject of that monopoly). Just because the "price" of the subsidy paid by the public is not directly monetary doesn't mean that it is any less of a subsidy.
A lot of people who (in my opinion, correctly) reject the notion of government subsidies as unnecessary and, on balance, harmful to society still accept the notion of IP because they don't see it for what it is. The backers of IP laws would have you believe that a world without IP laws would be a bleak, gray unhappy place with no creativity. Of course, the world before IP laws looked nothing like that, and the world won't look like that when people finally undo these mistakes of history.
-Steve
Didn't the patent office used to more-or-less do their job correctly back then too?
Unfortunately, no (not if your conception of what they should be doing is anything like mine). The difference is this: a few decades ago, it was not generally thought that you could patent software or methods of doing business, so very few patents were applied for, and granted, for these things. Today, these areas are patented quite regularly, these areas impact the growing information technology sector, and people are up-in-arms about it.
The problem, however, is not that there is something intrinsically worse about patenting software or methods of doing business, it is just that the impact of patents (which is to screw lots of people for the benefit of a few) are felt by many more people today, given the widespread patenting in these areas. While it may have seemed like the patent system worked a few decades ago, you likely wouldn't think that if you were one of the people who had their entire business taken away because of a patent you had never heard of (and had no reason to know of). Before we jump to the conclusion that patents are just fine over there, in that other field where we don't try to make our living, stop to think how you'd feel if you were one of the folks working in that field.
I am happy to see people waking up to the fact that something is terribly wrong with the patent system, but just because fewer people got ensared by it back in the good 'ole days doesn't mean that it was any better (structurally) than it is today.
-Steve (a former patent attorney)
For those who haven't heard of Gattaca, don't go looking for too much information on it (I have noticed several "spoilers" in comments here), just rent it and watch it.
-Steve
Also, are you saying that the no-reverse-engineering clauses actually carry any real weight? I was under the impression that they're on pretty shaky ground.
As far as I know, reverse engineering clauses have not been tested in court, but I have never seen a good argument for why they would not be upheld in the U.S. (some European countries may have laws that protect reverse engineering -- those protections may trump EULAs).
There is a lot of mythology about EULAs floating around on the Internet that somehow becomes common wisdom. Don't assume that any of it is necessarily true.
-Steve
See my reply to an earlier post.
The long and the short of it is: I replied too quickly. The main thrust of what I was trying to say (voiding the EULA doesn't get you much) is probably right, but I goofed on the use==infringement point. Mea culpa.
-Steve
On second though, I believe you are right, although not because of anything related to the first sale doctrine. Section 117 of the copyright statute does permit use of a copy of software by the owner of that copy, without requiring a license grant.
I warned you that what I wrote was off the top of my head. :-)
The main point I was making, though, is true -- not much is gained by voiding the EULA.
-Steve
I am a lawyer, but what I'm about to say is not legal advice. I would need to look at specific statutes and case law to come up with a specific answer -- this is just off the top of my head.
In most states, a contract entered into by a minor is voidable by the minor, rather than void. That means that the minor can (before reaching the age of majority, I believe) decide to declare the contract void, and then it is as if the contract had never been entered into. This doesn't apply to certain contracts, such as purchases of "necessaries".
So, without having looked at how this may have been applied with respect to licenses, my guess would be that a minor could declare a EULA that has been agreed to as "void". But what does that get you? Using the software without a license would likely constitute copyright infringement, and being a minor doesn't help you there. No EULA means no license, so use of the software may be off limits.
Remember, the EULA is not required to make it illegal to make copies of software for friends -- copyright does that all by itself. The only reasonable purposes for EULAs that I've ever heard of are warranty disclaimers, limitation of liability, and no-reverse-engineering clauses. Copyright law gives the publisher everything else they need.
Of course, if anyone has any idea what the actual case law is with regard to minors and EULAs, they should pipe up, as I may very well be wrong. (Have I covered myself enough?)
-Steve