I doubt even limiting copyrights to 1 year would change anything. People copy stuff because they want it *now* and they can get it *now*. They won't simply wait a year when they want it *now*. In the USA, many folks have grown up basically spoiled. Folks just simply don't know how to do without stuff they want that they can't afford when it is easy to get it for free, even if not legal. It doesn't have so much to do with right vs. wrong or "getting back at the establishment" as much as it does satisfying their desires. Most couldn't care less about the morality of it or using it as a form of protest.
From the above list, you'll see that software and books are very similar. Both can be copied cheaply and easily. Books can be scanned it and distributed through P2P.
Yes, but it takes a bit of time to do that. That is where the cost is. I don't know how long it would take to scan a 400 page book, but it would be boring and probably take up an afternoon or so.
The original question I think asked how come I can buy a book and do with it as I please (except copy it) but not the same with software for which we license it, sometimes with severe and inconvenient restrictions? It is a valid question.
I'm not sure I understand what the "do as I please" part is. You have a copy of the software and you have a book. Legally, you can't copy either for distribution. However, if you desire to set them on fire, you can. Give it to someone else? Yeah, as long as you remove your copy (the copy the other person uses is the only one). The normal licensing of the boxes of Windows you get at BestBuy have all these things. It seems that he bought a very restrictive version that said that he couldn't. I could buy a book and sign an agreement that I wouldn't sell or give it away, just like that licence. I say the guy bought the wrong thing and is unhappy with his decision. Things like that happen all the time.
The ease and cheapness of copying does not differentiate books from software, both are generally quite easy and cheap. The difference seems to lie in the fact that software naturally comes in a form that can be copied and a book has to be converted from physical to electronic (via scanning, for instance). It's not as clear a difference as some would believe.
I think ease and usefulness add into it though. You *can* copy a 1000 page book if there was reason enough to do so, but I don't know of anyone who would do so simply because it is boring and would take a long time. Also, when you are finished with a book you can simply give it to your friend or let him borrow it. Software is more like a tool you may want to use all the time and can't (or don't want) to stop using it while your friend uses your licensed copy.
then go off on a lecture about how copying software is the devil?
Hmmm... I didn't think I implied this. I reread my post and still don't see where I implied one way or the other, except to say that it's easy to copy/distribute software because there are no materials required.
I don't know what vendor he bought from, but I've always received a Windows CD with machines I bought (though, I've rarely bought complete machines, I usually build my own) and have had no problems installing it on other machines when I decommissioned the original machine.
just that he should be able to install his bought and paid for copy of Windows on the machine of his choice, not the machine of the OS manufacturer and/or vendor's choice.
Ahhh... but here's the rub... he didn't buy a copy of Windows. Evidently, he paid a licensing fee to run Windows on *that* exact machine that he bought (and no other). He should have bought the transferable license instead.
I've been connected via broadband now for 5 years and have had ZERO virii or worms on any of my machines. This is probably because you employ and extra level of maintenance in the form of a virus scanner. What about spyware? Don't you have to take steps to maintain a spyware free system? Every Windows user I know does (or should). And if they don't, it isn't long before they become choked with the crap.
Nope, no virus scanners, spyware scanners, or anything like that.
One of my Windows boxes runs 24/7/365 except for patches that require reboot or hardware installs/removals. One of my Linux boxes has the same policy as this.
I don't use Outlook to read mail, I do use IE quite a bit on the Windows box but I don't click on every link I see. I'm careful about what I run and such. I don't open attachments sent to me via email unless I *know* (usually meaning that I expected the attachment and/or use the virus scanning that my email provider uses) that it is safe. The quickest way to get email to me from you deleted without being even read or downloaded is to send me an attachment of any kind that I didn't expect to receive.
but the story ignores all those that buy a good quality PC with a copy of Windows and install Linux.
Yes... it does exactly what you say because the story isn't about people who buy PCs with Windows to install Linux on them. It's about people who buy PCs with Linux on them to install Windows.
Can I sell a license with a book? With lettuce maybe?
Irrelevant. They aren't the same thing. This is where the whole F/OSS vs. Closed Source issue is founded. The book comes with copyrights, which says you can't copy it. You can sell that one book to someone else, but you can't make copies and sell them or even give them away. Similarly, the lettuce is a consumable and used only once by you (I hope). It's hard to copy a head of lettuce and sell or give it away.
Software is easily copied and distributed for little/no cost to the copier. Even copying the book would cost some consumable materials (paper, maybe a cover, binding, etc.). Software has no materials in this way (and requires very little time investment even to copy and distribute). An automobile has a material cost in just the cost of the steel, plastics, rubber, etc. if not in the expertese/equipment required to put it together. It isn't feasible to copy and sell or give away automobiles. The same thing goes for computer hardware. Physical material cost (for the item itself and the equipment required to build the parts) prevents it. There are no such preventatives against software. It's just electrons and magnetic fields and stuff. In the same vein, if IP has no value, then NDAs aren't required because there is nothing to protect.
The folks who want to copy and sell/give away any software claim that this is OK because no material is involved/consumed in the process. Others claim Intellectual Property is the "material" and is therefore limited by the same restrictions on automobiles or that book you mentioned.
Actually, my Windows boxes take about the same amount of maintenance as my Linux boxes. I run a firewall to protect them all and I keep them all up-to-date on patches. I've been connected via broadband now for 5 years and have had ZERO virii or worms on any of my machines. However, I *did* have my Linux box rooted once when I was using it as the firewall. I now have a dedicated firewall device.
Heck, if Linux or MacOS X had VS.NET and my games and a couple other utilities, I'd not need Windows anymore either and I'd go with them. Unfortunately, I still have to keep my Windows boxes around because they are still too useful.
Personally, I don't feel threatened by anyone that believes something different than myself.
Well... if one is not Muslim, then there are a few Muslim extremists who believe that any non-Muslim person should be exterminated. I am not Muslim, so I do feel a little threatened by the beliefs of those Muslim extremists.
Come on! you don't really mean XP is as stable as Linux?!
*MY* Windows XP machines are as stable as my Linux boxes. Both have uptimes of until a patch causes me to reboot. Funny thing is... lately, I've patched my Linux boxes about 3X as often as my Windows boxes (and I apply all relevant and useful patches on both platforms).
So we have our dear ol' resort managers confusing linux with the rather crappy software they're running on it.
This doesn't matter. They buy the whole thing as a black box. It either works or it doesn't. Their Linux solution didn't work [period] They don't care that parts of it are a kernel and other parts are programs. If the WHOLE THING doesn't work, it is a complete failure [period] They neither have the time nor the money to care which parts are which.
For example, if a cash register malfunctions (other than replacing the user servicable pieces like the printer tape), you pull it off the counter, put another one on the counter, and send the malfunctioning one to be refurbed or fixed. If you are these guys, you don't break out the soldering iron and O-scope to see what the deal is. To them, all of the software is a part of the one system. If any part of it breaks, the whole system is broken.
Heh... combine that with Makefiles to do it all and it starts to get really fun:)
I used LaTeX to do a number of published papers and for each, had a Makefile that would render the document in PS, then in HTML and put it in the right spot for the web server, and do the.bib entry for it as well. One stop shopping to cover all the bases.
LaTeX was extremely powerful and the one thing that was really, really, really nice is that everything turns out EXACTLY like you tell it. Embedding lists inside of lists inside of lists... no problem! And you don't have to worry about it getting the 1. numbers right and you can use references to make sure that your document always references the correct things (tables, graphs, etc.) even if you move them and they change numbers or something.
When you have a license that restrictive, though it would be benefitial in maintaining compatibility with Java VMs & apps, wouldn't this basically restrict you from doing much with Java other than perhaps speed hacks and porting to some obscure OS?
It's actually quite funny, you know. People complain about how archaic the x86 ISA is, how ugly, how painful because it keeps alive all these wierd modes and such. However, when the company that makes the x86 actually tries to break the path and develop something new that is clean to get away from it, people bitch about that too and cling to their x86 boxes like their woobie, criticizing and defaming the new thing because it doesn't run all the software that they're used to using.
The other thing that is interesting is that most of the folks who come down on IA64 know next to nothing about it other than it isn't x86.
Funny... it just reproves the things we already knew from long ago from when the PCs killed off all the other neat hardware platforms from the 80s. Software is THE important part of a computer. The hardware doesn't matter as long as it runs the software.
You're doing 1/2 your part. You are still supporting 1/2 of Wintel because, other than the x86-64 part of Opteron, it's *still* the x86 ISA which is Intel. Even if you *did* run everything x86-64, x86-64 isn't a pure ISA in that it still has to incorporate a bit of x86 legacy in it, it's extentions not a completely new ISA.
If you really wanted to do your part, you'd do like the other post and run on other hardware than x86.
However, most people who talk about these things relax their ideals because the Intel stuff is way cheaper and easier to get. Basically, they say that 1/2 way is good enough because it saves them money.
Heh... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Honestly, I've been a member of two standards bodies (three if you include a failed IETF body) in the past and see how much they get you. Two different groups can implement something that is 100% the standard and not interoperate with each other or be compatible with each other.
Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.
That's logically nonsensical: Given A or ~A, A benefits large companies and ~A benefits large companies.
Only if you think about it simply. Given A, I can use this to my advantage by doing X. Given ~A, I can also use this to my advantage by doing Y. For example, if patents exist, I can take advantage of them to monopolize something, as you mention a number of times. However, if patents don't exist, I can take advantage of their non-existance to effectively "pick the brains" of every developer who writes code and releases it.
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it.
Except that:
(a) Implementation time in software relative to product cycle time is very long, making the value of being the first person to implement something still valuable without the need for an artificial monopoly. Traditional patents were designed for systems where ideas were pretty simple ("use a new sort of gear here") and the product lifecycle was long ("Yes, we've been making this type of plow for seven years now"). This vastly decreases the benefits of patents in the software field.
It depends on the software. Games and other "disposable" software demonstrate exactly what you say here. Other software has a longer useage. Database servers, for example, can be in production for many years (sure, the version numbers may change and you get newer products, but the patents that lie at the base of the work can be in effect and applicable for many years).
(b) Nobody uses patents as intended, in a manner that benefits the population as a whole. Large companies just maintain patent portfolios to keep people from entering and cross-license with their competitors. Little incentive to produce better products. Lots of companies have hard caps on what they'll pay for a license due to outrageous software patent litigation. For example, IIRC (and this may be out of date), Intel has a hard limit on a one-time $100K fee per patent, though they are willing to cross-license with other holders. That's not a very conducive environment to protect that little independent researcher that you're thinking of.
Guns don't kill people... People do. There are two sides to the situation. If a company or anyone else owns a patent, that excludes me from doing things. However, the other side is that if I have a patent, that means that I can do stuff with it (including not enforcing it and publicly declaring such) and others may not, except under my terms. Most of the people I see arguing against patents have the argument that others have the patents and that means I can't do stuff. I haven't seen any of those folks argue the point where they are the patent owner and what that means, other than to blow it off like above by saying basically "this never happens, the only situation is that big companies own them and use them to crush competition". Well, I work for a startup right now that is based on patent(s) held by the owner. Without a patent, we wouldn't exist and I'd be doing something else.
Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.
Software patents have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging companies to do research. In a corporate lab environment, real advancements don't get patented, because then all your competitors have cross-licensed access to your research. They remain secret.
Again... patents are not only used by companies but "little folks" as well. So, it doesn't encourage companies to do
Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it. Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.
Along those lines, we should do away with copyrights on software as well for the same reason. Once someone writes some code, why should it be limited in how you can use it? Why have to have someone rewrite more code to do the same thing? All code written should be released under the BSD license, then.
It's up to you to figure out if I'm being sarcastic or if I support these ideas.
Everyone is always blaming someone else instead of themselves. It gets them through the day.
I grew up poor. At 17, I was on my own. I worked. I paid my way through school and got my degrees on my own. I got my jobs on my own merit. I had as much reason as anyone to just become a welfare case but I didn't. If I had become one, it would have been no ones' fault but my own.
Lots of us have been calling ourselves hackers for years,
The "hacker code" that I grew up by was: "Hacker" is sort of an honorific. You can't call yourself a hacker. Others have to call you a hacker. If you call yourself a hacker, you almost assuredly aren't one.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt even limiting copyrights to 1 year would change anything. People copy stuff because they want it *now* and they can get it *now*. They won't simply wait a year when they want it *now*. In the USA, many folks have grown up basically spoiled. Folks just simply don't know how to do without stuff they want that they can't afford when it is easy to get it for free, even if not legal. It doesn't have so much to do with right vs. wrong or "getting back at the establishment" as much as it does satisfying their desires. Most couldn't care less about the morality of it or using it as a form of protest.
From the above list, you'll see that software and books are very similar. Both can be copied cheaply and easily. Books can be scanned it and distributed through P2P.
Yes, but it takes a bit of time to do that. That is where the cost is. I don't know how long it would take to scan a 400 page book, but it would be boring and probably take up an afternoon or so.
The original question I think asked how come I can buy a book and do with it as I please (except copy it) but not the same with software for which we license it, sometimes with severe and inconvenient restrictions? It is a valid question.
I'm not sure I understand what the "do as I please" part is. You have a copy of the software and you have a book. Legally, you can't copy either for distribution. However, if you desire to set them on fire, you can. Give it to someone else? Yeah, as long as you remove your copy (the copy the other person uses is the only one). The normal licensing of the boxes of Windows you get at BestBuy have all these things. It seems that he bought a very restrictive version that said that he couldn't. I could buy a book and sign an agreement that I wouldn't sell or give it away, just like that licence. I say the guy bought the wrong thing and is unhappy with his decision. Things like that happen all the time.
The ease and cheapness of copying does not differentiate books from software, both are generally quite easy and cheap. The difference seems to lie in the fact that software naturally comes in a form that can be copied and a book has to be converted from physical to electronic (via scanning, for instance). It's not as clear a difference as some would believe.
I think ease and usefulness add into it though. You *can* copy a 1000 page book if there was reason enough to do so, but I don't know of anyone who would do so simply because it is boring and would take a long time. Also, when you are finished with a book you can simply give it to your friend or let him borrow it. Software is more like a tool you may want to use all the time and can't (or don't want) to stop using it while your friend uses your licensed copy.
then go off on a lecture about how copying software is the devil?
Hmmm... I didn't think I implied this. I reread my post and still don't see where I implied one way or the other, except to say that it's easy to copy/distribute software because there are no materials required.
I don't know what vendor he bought from, but I've always received a Windows CD with machines I bought (though, I've rarely bought complete machines, I usually build my own) and have had no problems installing it on other machines when I decommissioned the original machine.
just that he should be able to install his bought and paid for copy of Windows on the machine of his choice, not the machine of the OS manufacturer and/or vendor's choice.
Ahhh... but here's the rub... he didn't buy a copy of Windows. Evidently, he paid a licensing fee to run Windows on *that* exact machine that he bought (and no other). He should have bought the transferable license instead.
I've been connected via broadband now for 5 years and have had ZERO virii or worms on any of my machines.
This is probably because you employ and extra level of maintenance in the form of a virus scanner. What about spyware? Don't you have to take steps to maintain a spyware free system? Every Windows user I know does (or should). And if they don't, it isn't long before they become choked with the crap.
Nope, no virus scanners, spyware scanners, or anything like that.
One of my Windows boxes runs 24/7/365 except for patches that require reboot or hardware installs/removals. One of my Linux boxes has the same policy as this.
I don't use Outlook to read mail, I do use IE quite a bit on the Windows box but I don't click on every link I see. I'm careful about what I run and such. I don't open attachments sent to me via email unless I *know* (usually meaning that I expected the attachment and/or use the virus scanning that my email provider uses) that it is safe. The quickest way to get email to me from you deleted without being even read or downloaded is to send me an attachment of any kind that I didn't expect to receive.
Basically, I just avoid doing stupid things.
My sympathy as well. This is a trajedy that is beyond the bounds of any computer/software politics.
but the story ignores all those that buy a good quality PC with a copy of Windows and install Linux.
Yes... it does exactly what you say because the story isn't about people who buy PCs with Windows to install Linux on them. It's about people who buy PCs with Linux on them to install Windows.
-Captain Obvious
Can I sell a license with a book? With lettuce maybe?
Irrelevant. They aren't the same thing. This is where the whole F/OSS vs. Closed Source issue is founded. The book comes with copyrights, which says you can't copy it. You can sell that one book to someone else, but you can't make copies and sell them or even give them away. Similarly, the lettuce is a consumable and used only once by you (I hope). It's hard to copy a head of lettuce and sell or give it away.
Software is easily copied and distributed for little/no cost to the copier. Even copying the book would cost some consumable materials (paper, maybe a cover, binding, etc.). Software has no materials in this way (and requires very little time investment even to copy and distribute). An automobile has a material cost in just the cost of the steel, plastics, rubber, etc. if not in the expertese/equipment required to put it together. It isn't feasible to copy and sell or give away automobiles. The same thing goes for computer hardware. Physical material cost (for the item itself and the equipment required to build the parts) prevents it. There are no such preventatives against software. It's just electrons and magnetic fields and stuff. In the same vein, if IP has no value, then NDAs aren't required because there is nothing to protect.
The folks who want to copy and sell/give away any software claim that this is OK because no material is involved/consumed in the process. Others claim Intellectual Property is the "material" and is therefore limited by the same restrictions on automobiles or that book you mentioned.
Actually, my Windows boxes take about the same amount of maintenance as my Linux boxes. I run a firewall to protect them all and I keep them all up-to-date on patches. I've been connected via broadband now for 5 years and have had ZERO virii or worms on any of my machines. However, I *did* have my Linux box rooted once when I was using it as the firewall. I now have a dedicated firewall device.
Heck, if Linux or MacOS X had VS.NET and my games and a couple other utilities, I'd not need Windows anymore either and I'd go with them. Unfortunately, I still have to keep my Windows boxes around because they are still too useful.
VB.NET is actually more like C# than the older (VB6) VBs. It looks almost like C# with global search and replace of keywords and the like.
'I find your lack of faith disturbing' - Darth Vader
My hopes go with you. There are no prayers to speak of from me for you or anyone or anything.
'I find your lack of faith disturbing' - Darth Vader
Personally, I don't feel threatened by anyone that believes something different than myself.
Well... if one is not Muslim, then there are a few Muslim extremists who believe that any non-Muslim person should be exterminated. I am not Muslim, so I do feel a little threatened by the beliefs of those Muslim extremists.
Come on! you don't really mean XP is as stable as Linux?!
*MY* Windows XP machines are as stable as my Linux boxes. Both have uptimes of until a patch causes me to reboot. Funny thing is... lately, I've patched my Linux boxes about 3X as often as my Windows boxes (and I apply all relevant and useful patches on both platforms).
So we have our dear ol' resort managers confusing linux with the rather crappy software they're running on it.
This doesn't matter. They buy the whole thing as a black box. It either works or it doesn't. Their Linux solution didn't work [period] They don't care that parts of it are a kernel and other parts are programs. If the WHOLE THING doesn't work, it is a complete failure [period] They neither have the time nor the money to care which parts are which.
For example, if a cash register malfunctions (other than replacing the user servicable pieces like the printer tape), you pull it off the counter, put another one on the counter, and send the malfunctioning one to be refurbed or fixed. If you are these guys, you don't break out the soldering iron and O-scope to see what the deal is. To them, all of the software is a part of the one system. If any part of it breaks, the whole system is broken.
Heh... combine that with Makefiles to do it all and it starts to get really fun :)
.bib entry for it as well. One stop shopping to cover all the bases.
I used LaTeX to do a number of published papers and for each, had a Makefile that would render the document in PS, then in HTML and put it in the right spot for the web server, and do the
LaTeX was extremely powerful and the one thing that was really, really, really nice is that everything turns out EXACTLY like you tell it. Embedding lists inside of lists inside of lists... no problem! And you don't have to worry about it getting the 1. numbers right and you can use references to make sure that your document always references the correct things (tables, graphs, etc.) even if you move them and they change numbers or something.
When you have a license that restrictive, though it would be benefitial in maintaining compatibility with Java VMs & apps, wouldn't this basically restrict you from doing much with Java other than perhaps speed hacks and porting to some obscure OS?
;)
Dunno... maybe we can ask Microsoft?
It's actually quite funny, you know. People complain about how archaic the x86 ISA is, how ugly, how painful because it keeps alive all these wierd modes and such. However, when the company that makes the x86 actually tries to break the path and develop something new that is clean to get away from it, people bitch about that too and cling to their x86 boxes like their woobie, criticizing and defaming the new thing because it doesn't run all the software that they're used to using.
The other thing that is interesting is that most of the folks who come down on IA64 know next to nothing about it other than it isn't x86.
Funny... it just reproves the things we already knew from long ago from when the PCs killed off all the other neat hardware platforms from the 80s. Software is THE important part of a computer. The hardware doesn't matter as long as it runs the software.
MS:
Linux version 2.6.7 (admin@xxx.xxx.xxx) (gcc version 3.3.3 20040412 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-7)) #1 Wed Jun 16 17:11:01 PDT 2004
Intel:
CPU: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 140 stepping 08
i'm doing my part. how about you?
You're doing 1/2 your part. You are still supporting 1/2 of Wintel because, other than the x86-64 part of Opteron, it's *still* the x86 ISA which is Intel. Even if you *did* run everything x86-64, x86-64 isn't a pure ISA in that it still has to incorporate a bit of x86 legacy in it, it's extentions not a completely new ISA.
If you really wanted to do your part, you'd do like the other post and run on other hardware than x86.
However, most people who talk about these things relax their ideals because the Intel stuff is way cheaper and easier to get. Basically, they say that 1/2 way is good enough because it saves them money.
in fact the amd64 is an all round faster chip than intel 32 bit chips, despite operating at roughly 1/2 the mhz.
The Itanium is a faster 64-bit chip than AMD's parts at 2/3 the MHz. Why aren't you praising it?
Heh... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Honestly, I've been a member of two standards bodies (three if you include a failed IETF body) in the past and see how much they get you. Two different groups can implement something that is 100% the standard and not interoperate with each other or be compatible with each other.
Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.
That's logically nonsensical: Given A or ~A, A benefits large companies and ~A benefits large companies.
Only if you think about it simply. Given A, I can use this to my advantage by doing X. Given ~A, I can also use this to my advantage by doing Y. For example, if patents exist, I can take advantage of them to monopolize something, as you mention a number of times. However, if patents don't exist, I can take advantage of their non-existance to effectively "pick the brains" of every developer who writes code and releases it.
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it.
Except that:
(a) Implementation time in software relative to product cycle time is very long, making the value of being the first person to implement something still valuable without the need for an artificial monopoly. Traditional patents were designed for systems where ideas were pretty simple ("use a new sort of gear here") and the product lifecycle was long ("Yes, we've been making this type of plow for seven years now"). This vastly decreases the benefits of patents in the software field.
It depends on the software. Games and other "disposable" software demonstrate exactly what you say here. Other software has a longer useage. Database servers, for example, can be in production for many years (sure, the version numbers may change and you get newer products, but the patents that lie at the base of the work can be in effect and applicable for many years).
(b) Nobody uses patents as intended, in a manner that benefits the population as a whole. Large companies just maintain patent portfolios to keep people from entering and cross-license with their competitors. Little incentive to produce better products. Lots of companies have hard caps on what they'll pay for a license due to outrageous software patent litigation. For example, IIRC (and this may be out of date), Intel has a hard limit on a one-time $100K fee per patent, though they are willing to cross-license with other holders. That's not a very conducive environment to protect that little independent researcher that you're thinking of.
Guns don't kill people... People do. There are two sides to the situation. If a company or anyone else owns a patent, that excludes me from doing things. However, the other side is that if I have a patent, that means that I can do stuff with it (including not enforcing it and publicly declaring such) and others may not, except under my terms. Most of the people I see arguing against patents have the argument that others have the patents and that means I can't do stuff. I haven't seen any of those folks argue the point where they are the patent owner and what that means, other than to blow it off like above by saying basically "this never happens, the only situation is that big companies own them and use them to crush competition". Well, I work for a startup right now that is based on patent(s) held by the owner. Without a patent, we wouldn't exist and I'd be doing something else.
Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.
Software patents have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging companies to do research. In a corporate lab environment, real advancements don't get patented, because then all your competitors have cross-licensed access to your research. They remain secret.
Again... patents are not only used by companies but "little folks" as well. So, it doesn't encourage companies to do
Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it. Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.
Along those lines, we should do away with copyrights on software as well for the same reason. Once someone writes some code, why should it be limited in how you can use it? Why have to have someone rewrite more code to do the same thing? All code written should be released under the BSD license, then.
It's up to you to figure out if I'm being sarcastic or if I support these ideas.
I'd mod you up if I could.
Everyone is always blaming someone else instead of themselves. It gets them through the day.
I grew up poor. At 17, I was on my own. I worked. I paid my way through school and got my degrees on my own. I got my jobs on my own merit. I had as much reason as anyone to just become a welfare case but I didn't. If I had become one, it would have been no ones' fault but my own.
Lots of us have been calling ourselves hackers for years,
The "hacker code" that I grew up by was: "Hacker" is sort of an honorific. You can't call yourself a hacker. Others have to call you a hacker. If you call yourself a hacker, you almost assuredly aren't one.