Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?
Good fucking luck. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you'll find your friends uploading your photo to their accounts to cover every party or night out you all share and tagging your image in there. I've always avoided Facebook, only to find that friends have taken pity on me and created a profile for me so that I can log in and check out photos of who they're dating, etc. You can't even buy a modern smartphone without finding Facebook as an uninstallable app built into it (at least the HTC Desire which I bought SIM free, and all the WP7 phones I checked out seen to have it integrated in a non-removable way with access rights given to all your contacts, txts, etc. You'd think that MS at least would make a business-market targeted phone).
I doubt you'll be modded down for it. I think people are gradually coming round to the realisation that Republican / Democrat is a lose-lose proposition. Obama crossed my mind as another example I could use, but when you can use Henry Kissinger as an example, I doubt there's really any other recipient that comes close in terms of irony. Whilst Obama, at the time he received the reward had done bugger all to earn it, he also hadn't had much time yet to do much harm. I don't know whether he was given the award as an inducement, due to corruption behind the scenes or worst, staggering political naivete on the part of the Nobel Committee. To this day, I'm stunned by the number of people who take as an axiom that he is a good person / force for good and rationalise every action or inaction around that. During the election, I had intelligent people telling me how he would be a great change for good, yet who couldn't talk for a second about the actual policies the Democrats were putting forward.
Nope, Ghandi never won the prize though I think he was nominated several times. On the other hand, Henry Kissinger did, which tells you all you need to know about the Nobel Peace Prize. GP made a bad example, I don't recall acts of sabotage by Ghandi, but he was certainly a law-breaker and a criminal by the laws of the time. GP should have picked a different specific.
Heh. Your post made me realise that I considered participating in this by downloading LOIC and running it as being acting in the open "without trying to hide who you are". I suppose there could be people out there who somehow think they can't be traced. But actually, did people really think that?
and the FACT that none of us actually knows the details of what Assange may or may not have done to/with those women)
Just pointing out that you are (a) conflating the sexual assault charges with the issues of Mastercard and Amazon discriminating against Wikileaks which is what has actually instigated this, and (b) making an accusation, rather than a conviction, something to base your decisions on.
I applaud your sentiment. So I guess the question is should something being online make a difference to the right to protest? And if not, is that the only relevant difference between clogging the streets with placards and DDoSing Mastercard or Amazon?
Most civil disobedience makes one a criminal, however. Is this civil disobedience? Well, it's done to make a political point and doesn't provide any material reward to the perpetrators, so I suppose it's at least heading in that direction. I'm not sure what would define civil disobedience that would exclude these attacks.
The trouble is any overhaul of the system prompted by big business is going to largely help big business only.
The trouble is caused by bad patents and the way that using them to attack someone is so trivial. How do you think the law would be re-worked to remove these factors in a way that would be anti-competitive?
Simply put, I believe where there is a capacity to act, moral responsibility is all but inescapable. Your comment that patents by their very nature 'can instrinsically have destructive effects' does not rule out that they can also have positive effects. Something must be assessed as a whole, not on selected qualities.
I fully agree that too easily granted patents are folly, but disagree that a patentee is thus blameless. Yes, if you remove the locks from all the houses, you are in some way responsible for the ensuing burglaries, but that does not entirely get the burglar off the hook.
It's not the idea that is traded or sold, it is the reward for having or developing the idea. If you suppose that someone should be rewarded for coming up with an original and innovative design or idea that moves the species forwards, then it's arbitrary and incredibly limiting to say that the reward can't be represented as money.
But then you can give some of noidentity's number to another person who will give you food and clothing for your children, for example. So you didn't give your car in return for nothing, there's merely a time delay before you get something solid in return for it.
Follow-up to my previous reply: I think I slightly mis-read you when you expanded on and improved my analogy. I guess on Slashdot I'm just used to posts following the pattern or Statement - > Disagreement.;)
Sorry.
H.
If I am unable to raise enough capital to launch my invention properly into a marketplace, is it socially acceptable to sell it to an entity such as IV?
"Socially" depends on the society. If you hang out on Slashdot, it's socially acceptable to rip off people's work and investments because "copying isn't theft", doesn't mean there isn't real world harm. You have to follow your own conscience and reasoning. But yes, if you've legitimately contributed something original and non-obvious to the World but lack the capital, means or time to develop it yourself, sure, it's not wrong to sell that on and say: "this is worth a hundred-thousand dollars, but would take me months I can't afford to bring it to market, would you like it for twenty-thousand dollars and you do the work?" But not to a company like IV. They're not a patent troll because they purchase patents from other people, they're a patent troll because they bury the patents doing nothing useful with them, and wait for someone else to develop a similar idea and piggy back on other people's work. Whoever you sell your patent to, you're effectively forming a partnership with them for moral purposes. Sell it to IV to sit on waiting for an unwary researcher, and that's no different to you doing the same thing yourself, it's merely that you're splitting the profits with a fellow villain. But if say you developed a new chemical process and took it to an appropriate industry company that word build on it and make use of it, then similarly that's no different than you doing so yourself, except that you have found a fellow colleague who will help you in the work.
If you have a valid patent, a socially positive patent, then like most assets, you can direct that to good or ill. Split the profits (i.e. by selling or partnering) with a socially postive partner, you're doing a socially positive thing. Pick a patent troll (i.e. someone that merely uses it as a trap for others), then you have not.
If stuck on a moral question, reason through the consequences of your actions, with the more inclusive the good achieved being your rough guide to how moral the action is (i.e. benefits only you - meh, benefits your neighbourhood - better, benefits the whole world - yay!).
You make two mistakes in asking what/. thinks are the correct answers. One is assuming that Slashdot has a group mind, the second is that the most vocal are the most representative. But with those caveats:
Sure, you could sell your patent if that's the best way of capitalising on it. But whether that's good or bad depends on other factors - mainly the validity of your patent. If you just patented an idea that would likely occur to other people and sat on it until someone else did think of it and then sued over it... That would be bad. You've contributed nothing and caused a destructive effect. If you were an independent research chemist who came up with an innovative new process after much testing and it's far from obvious, then by all means approach another company and sell or licence your patent. But you see the difference between the two examples is not whether or not the patent has been sold. It's whether the patent has been originally awarded to someone or some group that actually added to society with their original contribution. What companies like this do, is file as many stupid obvious or natural ideas as they can and then look for someone else to independently stumble into the same area before pouncing.
The answer to the question of whether you have the right to sell the patent, is actually more, do you have the right to a patent. I.e. did you come up with something genuinely original, either through your unique genius or more likely careful testing and research, that has added to society's capability, or did you write down "a website could have a 'one-click' button that lets you buy things" and wait for someone to implement it.
You miss the point that I was making. Microsoft or Motorola can't recommend that the laws of Physics be changed to make Nuclear weapons ineffective (well, they could, but only for the lulz). However, they can quite plausibly bring about patent reform by pushing for changes in the laws of, well, law.;)
A few super-powers having nuclear weapons gives them a game advantage over the non-nuclear powers. But when that strategy fails, it is better for them to have everyone disarmed and fall back on their mighty conventional forces. As I said in my post, this may not be an option with nuclear weapons (though I would like to see disarmament), but it certainly is with patents. Don't take analogies too far.
Well, it's not good directly, but if the big companies start getting hit by patent attacks, then we might soon see absurd patent laws and approvals get an overdue overhaul. Previously, they've seemed like an advantage to the big players because they form a barrier to entry that keeps out new competition. The big players have armouries of patents and, much like nuclear weapons are supposed to protect through a principle of MAD, they didn't use them on each other much. But it seems there is rampant proliferation and we're seeing patent fights between big players erupt despite this (e.g. Nokia and Apple). So maybe disillusionment with them will creep in. And unlike nuclear weapons, disarmament is simple - big companies can't advocate for a change in the laws of Physics, but changes in the laws of the land, they can do.
Maybe it's optimistic. Maybe it will all settle down into a cartel and the patent threat to small players will remain. But if the patent trolls are greedy enough to really take a bite out of the hand that feeds them, perhaps not.
I get them all confused. Probably thinking of Lot's wife which was a similar woman-transformation thing. Maybe it's in both, like with Odin and Jesus both being nailed to a tree for three days before coming back to life. If Jesus didn't have one-eye, I'd never be able to remember which was which.
This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.
Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.
Less off-topic if you're not a US citizen, however. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of US citizens who couldn't tell me what they are. Regardless of whether we can go off and re-search it ourselves, a bit of explanation in the summary wouldn't have harmed. I'm guessing more likely he was modded offtopic just by someone who's been annoyed by an opinion of theirs in the past. That sort of modding happens not infrequently.
The US navy had been blockading oil supplies to the Japanese who were currently already at war with their own enemies. The USA military was thus supporting Japan's enemies. If the US didn't want Pearl Harbour to happen, they were going about it in a very funny way.
Also, now I know for a fact that many people here are just anti-American
The American People != The American Govt. Having lived in the US, I found the people some of the friendliest and most welcoming as a nation I'd ever encountered. I am a big critic of US foreign policy but that doesn't make me blanket "anti-american". Hell, can you pick a single nationality on Slashdot where people of that nation would post "hey - please judge me by my government?" Don't muddle the issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?
Good fucking luck. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you'll find your friends uploading your photo to their accounts to cover every party or night out you all share and tagging your image in there. I've always avoided Facebook, only to find that friends have taken pity on me and created a profile for me so that I can log in and check out photos of who they're dating, etc. You can't even buy a modern smartphone without finding Facebook as an uninstallable app built into it (at least the HTC Desire which I bought SIM free, and all the WP7 phones I checked out seen to have it integrated in a non-removable way with access rights given to all your contacts, txts, etc. You'd think that MS at least would make a business-market targeted phone).
Staying off Facebook is a full time job.
True. We'll have to see how many of them continue to take such actions once they're older and have learnt to fear the government a little more.
I doubt you'll be modded down for it. I think people are gradually coming round to the realisation that Republican / Democrat is a lose-lose proposition. Obama crossed my mind as another example I could use, but when you can use Henry Kissinger as an example, I doubt there's really any other recipient that comes close in terms of irony. Whilst Obama, at the time he received the reward had done bugger all to earn it, he also hadn't had much time yet to do much harm. I don't know whether he was given the award as an inducement, due to corruption behind the scenes or worst, staggering political naivete on the part of the Nobel Committee. To this day, I'm stunned by the number of people who take as an axiom that he is a good person / force for good and rationalise every action or inaction around that. During the election, I had intelligent people telling me how he would be a great change for good, yet who couldn't talk for a second about the actual policies the Democrats were putting forward.
Nope, Ghandi never won the prize though I think he was nominated several times. On the other hand, Henry Kissinger did, which tells you all you need to know about the Nobel Peace Prize. GP made a bad example, I don't recall acts of sabotage by Ghandi, but he was certainly a law-breaker and a criminal by the laws of the time. GP should have picked a different specific.
Heh. Your post made me realise that I considered participating in this by downloading LOIC and running it as being acting in the open "without trying to hide who you are". I suppose there could be people out there who somehow think they can't be traced. But actually, did people really think that?
and the FACT that none of us actually knows the details of what Assange may or may not have done to/with those women)
Just pointing out that you are (a) conflating the sexual assault charges with the issues of Mastercard and Amazon discriminating against Wikileaks which is what has actually instigated this, and (b) making an accusation, rather than a conviction, something to base your decisions on.
I applaud your sentiment. So I guess the question is should something being online make a difference to the right to protest? And if not, is that the only relevant difference between clogging the streets with placards and DDoSing Mastercard or Amazon?
Most civil disobedience makes one a criminal, however. Is this civil disobedience? Well, it's done to make a political point and doesn't provide any material reward to the perpetrators, so I suppose it's at least heading in that direction. I'm not sure what would define civil disobedience that would exclude these attacks.
The trouble is any overhaul of the system prompted by big business is going to largely help big business only.
The trouble is caused by bad patents and the way that using them to attack someone is so trivial. How do you think the law would be re-worked to remove these factors in a way that would be anti-competitive?
Little of what you're ranting about is even mentioned in my posts. Your having an argument with someone that exists only inside your head.
Simply put, I believe where there is a capacity to act, moral responsibility is all but inescapable. Your comment that patents by their very nature 'can instrinsically have destructive effects' does not rule out that they can also have positive effects. Something must be assessed as a whole, not on selected qualities.
I fully agree that too easily granted patents are folly, but disagree that a patentee is thus blameless. Yes, if you remove the locks from all the houses, you are in some way responsible for the ensuing burglaries, but that does not entirely get the burglar off the hook.
It's not the idea that is traded or sold, it is the reward for having or developing the idea. If you suppose that someone should be rewarded for coming up with an original and innovative design or idea that moves the species forwards, then it's arbitrary and incredibly limiting to say that the reward can't be represented as money.
You're welcome. But I wouldn't make a habit of seeking moral guidance on Slashdot. ;)
:)
Good luck with the whole advancing mankind thing.
H.
But then you can give some of noidentity's number to another person who will give you food and clothing for your children, for example. So you didn't give your car in return for nothing, there's merely a time delay before you get something solid in return for it.
Follow-up to my previous reply: I think I slightly mis-read you when you expanded on and improved my analogy. I guess on Slashdot I'm just used to posts following the pattern or Statement - > Disagreement. ;)
Sorry.
H.
If I am unable to raise enough capital to launch my invention properly into a marketplace, is it socially acceptable to sell it to an entity such as IV?
"Socially" depends on the society. If you hang out on Slashdot, it's socially acceptable to rip off people's work and investments because "copying isn't theft", doesn't mean there isn't real world harm. You have to follow your own conscience and reasoning. But yes, if you've legitimately contributed something original and non-obvious to the World but lack the capital, means or time to develop it yourself, sure, it's not wrong to sell that on and say: "this is worth a hundred-thousand dollars, but would take me months I can't afford to bring it to market, would you like it for twenty-thousand dollars and you do the work?" But not to a company like IV. They're not a patent troll because they purchase patents from other people, they're a patent troll because they bury the patents doing nothing useful with them, and wait for someone else to develop a similar idea and piggy back on other people's work. Whoever you sell your patent to, you're effectively forming a partnership with them for moral purposes. Sell it to IV to sit on waiting for an unwary researcher, and that's no different to you doing the same thing yourself, it's merely that you're splitting the profits with a fellow villain. But if say you developed a new chemical process and took it to an appropriate industry company that word build on it and make use of it, then similarly that's no different than you doing so yourself, except that you have found a fellow colleague who will help you in the work.
If you have a valid patent, a socially positive patent, then like most assets, you can direct that to good or ill. Split the profits (i.e. by selling or partnering) with a socially postive partner, you're doing a socially positive thing. Pick a patent troll (i.e. someone that merely uses it as a trap for others), then you have not.
If stuck on a moral question, reason through the consequences of your actions, with the more inclusive the good achieved being your rough guide to how moral the action is (i.e. benefits only you - meh, benefits your neighbourhood - better, benefits the whole world - yay!).
Does that sort of answer what you were asking?
You make two mistakes in asking what /. thinks are the correct answers. One is assuming that Slashdot has a group mind, the second is that the most vocal are the most representative. But with those caveats:
Sure, you could sell your patent if that's the best way of capitalising on it. But whether that's good or bad depends on other factors - mainly the validity of your patent. If you just patented an idea that would likely occur to other people and sat on it until someone else did think of it and then sued over it... That would be bad. You've contributed nothing and caused a destructive effect. If you were an independent research chemist who came up with an innovative new process after much testing and it's far from obvious, then by all means approach another company and sell or licence your patent. But you see the difference between the two examples is not whether or not the patent has been sold. It's whether the patent has been originally awarded to someone or some group that actually added to society with their original contribution. What companies like this do, is file as many stupid obvious or natural ideas as they can and then look for someone else to independently stumble into the same area before pouncing.
The answer to the question of whether you have the right to sell the patent, is actually more, do you have the right to a patent. I.e. did you come up with something genuinely original, either through your unique genius or more likely careful testing and research, that has added to society's capability, or did you write down "a website could have a 'one-click' button that lets you buy things" and wait for someone to implement it.
You miss the point that I was making. Microsoft or Motorola can't recommend that the laws of Physics be changed to make Nuclear weapons ineffective (well, they could, but only for the lulz). However, they can quite plausibly bring about patent reform by pushing for changes in the laws of, well, law. ;)
A few super-powers having nuclear weapons gives them a game advantage over the non-nuclear powers. But when that strategy fails, it is better for them to have everyone disarmed and fall back on their mighty conventional forces. As I said in my post, this may not be an option with nuclear weapons (though I would like to see disarmament), but it certainly is with patents. Don't take analogies too far.
Well, it's not good directly, but if the big companies start getting hit by patent attacks, then we might soon see absurd patent laws and approvals get an overdue overhaul. Previously, they've seemed like an advantage to the big players because they form a barrier to entry that keeps out new competition. The big players have armouries of patents and, much like nuclear weapons are supposed to protect through a principle of MAD, they didn't use them on each other much. But it seems there is rampant proliferation and we're seeing patent fights between big players erupt despite this (e.g. Nokia and Apple). So maybe disillusionment with them will creep in. And unlike nuclear weapons, disarmament is simple - big companies can't advocate for a change in the laws of Physics, but changes in the laws of the land, they can do.
Maybe it's optimistic. Maybe it will all settle down into a cartel and the patent threat to small players will remain. But if the patent trolls are greedy enough to really take a bite out of the hand that feeds them, perhaps not.
Um, that one isn’t from the Bible.
I get them all confused. Probably thinking of Lot's wife which was a similar woman-transformation thing. Maybe it's in both, like with Odin and Jesus both being nailed to a tree for three days before coming back to life. If Jesus didn't have one-eye, I'd never be able to remember which was which.
This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.
Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.
I'm certain that religious people will love this.
Less off-topic if you're not a US citizen, however. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of US citizens who couldn't tell me what they are. Regardless of whether we can go off and re-search it ourselves, a bit of explanation in the summary wouldn't have harmed. I'm guessing more likely he was modded offtopic just by someone who's been annoyed by an opinion of theirs in the past. That sort of modding happens not infrequently.
The US navy had been blockading oil supplies to the Japanese who were currently already at war with their own enemies. The USA military was thus supporting Japan's enemies. If the US didn't want Pearl Harbour to happen, they were going about it in a very funny way.
Also, now I know for a fact that many people here are just anti-American
The American People != The American Govt. Having lived in the US, I found the people some of the friendliest and most welcoming as a nation I'd ever encountered. I am a big critic of US foreign policy but that doesn't make me blanket "anti-american". Hell, can you pick a single nationality on Slashdot where people of that nation would post "hey - please judge me by my government?" Don't muddle the issues.
I just get a message from that saying I must allow Third Party Content in my FLASH player.