Thank you. As I keep telling every third person who uses the term "intellectual property" like it is an accepted concept in our society: it aint. The concept of intellectual property was considered, and rejected, by Socrates for christ sake. A world where someone can own an idea is no world I want to live in but so many people think we already live in that world!
Ok, hang on, what you're saying is that if you buy a copy of Microsoft Word for Mac and then decide to become a Windows user you should be able to get a copy of Microsoft Word for Windows for the cost of the media? Wow. And to think, all I was suggesting is that I should be free to modify Mac OS X for Intel to run on non-Apple hardware, I wasn't suggesting they should give it to me for the cost of the media because I already own a copy of Mac OS X for PPC.
Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property". If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work. If that's not your position, if you can imagine just one situation where the owner of the work should not have complete control over that work then, please, don't use the term. The decisions we make now about infinitely reproducable software will determine what is acceptable to our children's children when everything is infinitely reproducable. Already the idea that officials should have the right to invade our homes to ensure we are abiding by licensing agreements is considered reasonable to most people.
Your rights as a human being are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The fact that I have to point this out to multiple people is testament to why the US is so fucked up.
Currently they seem okay with Apple, and you're in a minority of one.
Ha! You're calling me a minority? We're talking about Apple here. The people have already spoken, they want an operating system they are free to install on any hardware they want, you're the one in the minority.
Rights are not granted by governments either! Some rights are guarenteed by the US constitution as a measure to prevent the states from enacting laws which violate those rights, but that does not mean that the citizens of the US have no other rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights. Quite the opposite.
What's in it for Apple to allow other hardware companies to sell OS X?
Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X? If Apple wants to sell a product then they need someone to sell it to and as long as software consumers continue to accept these "no rights but those we allow" stance currently offered by Apple and other software companies they will continue to make money. So I say, why stand for it?
Yes, and you should have the freedom to modify the software to make it work on your hardware. Just like if I buy a printer I have the right to modify that printer to accept cheaper ink cartridges. I'm not required to use "official" ink refills so why should I be forced to use "official" Apple hardware?
Last time I checked, GM was required to sell the individual parts that make up their vehicles. Also, no-one was required to buy the spare parts from GM or were prevented from using GM's engines in their home built car or even in a commercial product. Imagine if GM decided they weren't going to "sell" their cars anymore, they were only going to "license" them. They continued offering their cars as if they were selling them, but once you payed the money and got inside you discovered there was a license agreement you had to accept before you could drive the car. I wonder how many seconds it would take for a judge to rule that GM was insane and that no sensible consumer would accept such conditions.
So what you're saying is that if Microsoft tomorrow said that Windows XP could only be used with hardware supplied by approved hardware manufacturers you'd be ok with that? And all those court cases where the judge has ruled that you have the right to use Nifty brand razor blades with Gillette brand razors even if Gillette has written on the razor that you may only use legitimate Gillette razor blades with their razors were wrong decisions in your opinion? Why it is whenever we're talking about regular old property we all have these clear ideas about what it means to sell that property to another person and the freedom that person has to use that property as they see fit, but when it comes to "intellectual property" we're all too willing to say the weaker guy has no rights and should rightly be stomped on if it makes the stronger guy a bit richer.
Ahh, you poor fool. There is no concept of intellectual property, except that which was rejected in ancient times as terrible idea that would cause nothing but suffering. The copyright and patent systems of the world are based on the concept of utilitarianism where the goal is to encourage the creation of future works by securing limited monopolies to current creators. As such, any applications of those systems should be, and often used to be, reevaluated under the concept of what is the public interest. But those days are now over as the public interest has fallen to the special interests.
Umm.. yes, the freedom to copy, install and distribute software is still a freedom. The fact that our governments have collectively conspired with business to quash that freedom does not make it any less so. In the specific case we're talking about here, Apple is using the power of copyright law to prevent competitors from selling machines with their operating system preinstalled therefore artificially inflating the value of their hardware. How is that right? How is that just? How can you possibly support a government that facilitates that?
Who cares? Restricting someone from doing something because he might complain about it after he has done it is perhaps the most fascist thing I've ever heard. Jesus, does freedom mean anything to you guys?
I don't understand why clone makers should require Apple's approval. Apple should be forced to sell their product to anyone who wants to buy it. In this case the product is the operating system.
Can some Apple officiados tell me whether or not it was legal to make PPC-based Mac clones without needing some special license from Apple? I vaguely remember something about a court case or 10 where clone makers were told they could sell machines with OS-X preinstalled so long as they used no Apple logos on their promotions and made it clear to their customers that they were indeed buying a clone. Wouldn't the same rulings apply if Dell wanted to ship Intel-based Mac clones with OS-X preinstalled? Not that I imagine they would.
You know that at one point a personal computer was the fevered dream of a madman right? Same with a laptop. Same with a PDA. Hell, same with a freakin' digital wristwatch. That's the whole point of inventing something.. it doesn't exist until you do. Until Woz sat down and designed the Apple I the concept of a personal computer that was "viable for consumers" had ever been built. That didn't stop him from building it. Have some imagination.
Suppose there were some people who would like to buy a few of these chips for some application? Can they get a price? No? It's a stunt. You announce products not research.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. As I keep telling every third person who uses the term "intellectual property" like it is an accepted concept in our society: it aint. The concept of intellectual property was considered, and rejected, by Socrates for christ sake. A world where someone can own an idea is no world I want to live in but so many people think we already live in that world!
No. They're not. Intellectual property rights have been rejected.
Ok, hang on, what you're saying is that if you buy a copy of Microsoft Word for Mac and then decide to become a Windows user you should be able to get a copy of Microsoft Word for Windows for the cost of the media? Wow. And to think, all I was suggesting is that I should be free to modify Mac OS X for Intel to run on non-Apple hardware, I wasn't suggesting they should give it to me for the cost of the media because I already own a copy of Mac OS X for PPC.
Well ya know they could just define the market so small that Apple is the only competitor in it. Like they did in the Microsoft trial :)
Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property". If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work. If that's not your position, if you can imagine just one situation where the owner of the work should not have complete control over that work then, please, don't use the term. The decisions we make now about infinitely reproducable software will determine what is acceptable to our children's children when everything is infinitely reproducable. Already the idea that officials should have the right to invade our homes to ensure we are abiding by licensing agreements is considered reasonable to most people.
Your rights as a human being are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The fact that I have to point this out to multiple people is testament to why the US is so fucked up.
Currently they seem okay with Apple, and you're in a minority of one.
Ha! You're calling me a minority? We're talking about Apple here. The people have already spoken, they want an operating system they are free to install on any hardware they want, you're the one in the minority.
claiming someone has the freedom to restrain others is nonsensical.
Rights are not granted by governments either! Some rights are guarenteed by the US constitution as a measure to prevent the states from enacting laws which violate those rights, but that does not mean that the citizens of the US have no other rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights. Quite the opposite.
What's in it for Apple to allow other hardware companies to sell OS X?
Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X? If Apple wants to sell a product then they need someone to sell it to and as long as software consumers continue to accept these "no rights but those we allow" stance currently offered by Apple and other software companies they will continue to make money. So I say, why stand for it?
Yes, and you should have the freedom to modify the software to make it work on your hardware. Just like if I buy a printer I have the right to modify that printer to accept cheaper ink cartridges. I'm not required to use "official" ink refills so why should I be forced to use "official" Apple hardware?
Freedoms are not things that are granted by governments. If I need to explain this to you then you're beyond help.
Maybe in the 60s you could, but since then we've had this whole 'civil rights' movement that you may or may not have heard of.
Last time I checked, GM was required to sell the individual parts that make up their vehicles. Also, no-one was required to buy the spare parts from GM or were prevented from using GM's engines in their home built car or even in a commercial product. Imagine if GM decided they weren't going to "sell" their cars anymore, they were only going to "license" them. They continued offering their cars as if they were selling them, but once you payed the money and got inside you discovered there was a license agreement you had to accept before you could drive the car. I wonder how many seconds it would take for a judge to rule that GM was insane and that no sensible consumer would accept such conditions.
So what you're saying is that if Microsoft tomorrow said that Windows XP could only be used with hardware supplied by approved hardware manufacturers you'd be ok with that? And all those court cases where the judge has ruled that you have the right to use Nifty brand razor blades with Gillette brand razors even if Gillette has written on the razor that you may only use legitimate Gillette razor blades with their razors were wrong decisions in your opinion? Why it is whenever we're talking about regular old property we all have these clear ideas about what it means to sell that property to another person and the freedom that person has to use that property as they see fit, but when it comes to "intellectual property" we're all too willing to say the weaker guy has no rights and should rightly be stomped on if it makes the stronger guy a bit richer.
Ahh, you poor fool. There is no concept of intellectual property, except that which was rejected in ancient times as terrible idea that would cause nothing but suffering. The copyright and patent systems of the world are based on the concept of utilitarianism where the goal is to encourage the creation of future works by securing limited monopolies to current creators. As such, any applications of those systems should be, and often used to be, reevaluated under the concept of what is the public interest. But those days are now over as the public interest has fallen to the special interests.
Umm.. yes, the freedom to copy, install and distribute software is still a freedom. The fact that our governments have collectively conspired with business to quash that freedom does not make it any less so. In the specific case we're talking about here, Apple is using the power of copyright law to prevent competitors from selling machines with their operating system preinstalled therefore artificially inflating the value of their hardware. How is that right? How is that just? How can you possibly support a government that facilitates that?
Who cares? Restricting someone from doing something because he might complain about it after he has done it is perhaps the most fascist thing I've ever heard. Jesus, does freedom mean anything to you guys?
I don't understand why clone makers should require Apple's approval. Apple should be forced to sell their product to anyone who wants to buy it. In this case the product is the operating system.
Dear God, this is the worst modded up comment I've seen in a long time.
Can some Apple officiados tell me whether or not it was legal to make PPC-based Mac clones without needing some special license from Apple? I vaguely remember something about a court case or 10 where clone makers were told they could sell machines with OS-X preinstalled so long as they used no Apple logos on their promotions and made it clear to their customers that they were indeed buying a clone. Wouldn't the same rulings apply if Dell wanted to ship Intel-based Mac clones with OS-X preinstalled? Not that I imagine they would.
You know that at one point a personal computer was the fevered dream of a madman right? Same with a laptop. Same with a PDA. Hell, same with a freakin' digital wristwatch. That's the whole point of inventing something.. it doesn't exist until you do. Until Woz sat down and designed the Apple I the concept of a personal computer that was "viable for consumers" had ever been built. That didn't stop him from building it. Have some imagination.
Publish != Press Release. Applying known techniques to create something that you don't intend to sell is a stunt.
Suppose there were some people who would like to buy a few of these chips for some application? Can they get a price? No? It's a stunt. You announce products not research.
Revolutionary technology is rarely predicted, let alone by journalists at Wired.
Unlike most things posted with "The Foot" I thought this was actually funny.