IMHO, fixing that would go a long way towards fixing the patent situation. If the patent holder had to pay back all licensing and attorney fees for a patent ruled invalid, the patent holders themselves would be far more careful in asserting rights for "inventions" that are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.
As much as I don't like patents, this would hurt small inventors more than anyone else.
You aren't going to get away with convincing people they need a new TV.
This may be true where you are but here in the States many think they need a digital tv. A few weeks ago I went shopping for a new dvd player, a regular one not Blu-Ray or HD, and I only found a few. Meanwhile some of the people working in some of the stores I went to said I had to get a digital tv and replace my analogue tv. Only one person I talked to said anything about getting a digital converter.
What I mind about the switch is there's no choice, freedom.
And in the case of photo cameras, quality.
I prefer film generally however I still want to get a DSLR, which are approaching the resolution of film. Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III has a 21.1 MP full frame sensor. This is close to the pixel count of medium format digital backs from 2 or 3 years ago. I'll love to get this camera, then I could use the sames lenses I already have for my 35mm SLR with this camera without any magnification or cropping.
A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap.
I don't like not being able to skip all the junk on disks either. Another thing that bothers me even more is that while I never had a VHS tape go bad or get eaten by the VCR, and I have hundreds, I've get a stack of DVD disks that won't play properly. And the oldest ones I have like this wouldn't play in 2 different players.
So what if we can get more channels?
This is 'bout the only thing about the switch to digital I like. I want more choices, even if the only channel I watch is CNN.
Who told you that the warranty won't cover third-party RAM? They're wrong. Installing RAM into a MacBook Pro is easy, it's described in the manual as an user-installabe part, and in fact, except for the Mac mini, I always order the lowest amount of RAM from Apple and upgrade it myself. AppleCare never had an issue with that.
A Genius at a store told me that AppleCare at least won't cover third party RAM, but he did say, like you, that adding RAM is easy. That Apple designed the MacBooks and MBPs so RAM could be added or swapped by users. He didn't say though whether Apple checks RAM to see if it's Apple branded. The terms for AppleCare says Apple RAM modules are also covered under APP if owned by you and used with the Covered Equipment.(pdf) It says nothing about whether third party ram is covered though.
the vast majority of writers, musicians, and artists live on very low incomes, have no savings for retirement, and will need any tiny royalty that still comes in during their old age
I partially admitted this when I brought up that it took Leo Tolstoy 7 years to write "War and Peace". A few months back I had a discussion like this but my role was reversed, I was the one who wanted copyrights, and lasting 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Even in their old age though many writers can still write. Also some people will pay more for signed copies and such. While not a writer now 10 years ago I was one and and was writing articles for magazines and a book, so copyright was important to me. Now however I want to work as a photographer, who also use copyrights, but as stated above I'm not sure copyrights are needed.
However, the same argument in no way translates to software.
If there are copyrights I can see software being copyrighted, however I strongly oppose software patents!!!
you and I use "open source" differently then. Open source allows people to view the source code for free, not just those licensed to view the code. And some licenses allow modification and or resale of said code.
there are some countries (e.g. Germany) where laws are in effect that allow you - under certain circumstances - to disassemble and rewrite/modify software.
Maybe in other countries people are allowed to do so however MS is a US company and I live in the US. Without paying for that license I can't legally look at the Windows source code. Without paying anything though I can look at, read, and modify all the source code for Linux I want and can understand. Don't come to the conclusion I'm a Penguinhead though. Though I have 2 PCs with Linus, one is an old DEC Alpha setup as a dualboot booting both Linux and Windows NT 4.0 and the other is a PC I got preinstalled with Linux a bit over a year ago and haven't booted up the last 2 months, I am typing this on a MacBook Pro I got 2 months ago to replace my Windows PC.
I can at least upgrade the hardware on lower end generic x86 systems (despite having embedded sound, graphic cards etc - I can add much better ones later on). I can't do that on lower end Macs.
Expandability of consumer Macs is one of the issues I have with Apple's Mac lines. The only Mac a person can really crack open and add cards or drives to is the Mac Pro, which starts as $2500. Related to it, I wish Apple had a tower for maybe $1000. It doesn't need the best or biggest drives or graphics but should have expansion slots. However some say most people can find a line of Macs that suit them and that by adding more lines, such as what I said above, would increase their costs without bringing much benefit. Only those who have demands for customization would get these.
Adam Smith couldn't prevent anyone else from thinking, or using his idea of the Invisible Hand, but he could prevent you from publishing the words he used to describe it.
I doubt it, Adam Smith was against patents and copyrights, except for a limited tyme period, instead he believed in selling a better product at a lower cost. He equated monopolies as a mercantile system and he was dedicated to defeating this system. He wanted to replace it with that Invisible hand, a free market where there was a voluntary exchange.
So yes, two people can have the same idea, and both of them can often have their idea protected.
Not if one patents the idea. The other looses any right to it. In the US it's First to Invent whereas elsewhere it's First to File. If they both invent as the same tyme independently only one can get the patent.
Does it not serve the purpose of expediency that the person who first completed their work ought to gain the right to produce it?
No, not to the exclusion of the other, they should both have the same right to produce, or try to produce their invention.
A system that rewards the expedient party also provides for an efficient system where people planning to undertake research will be encouraged to discover what others might be working on, so as not to duplicate anyone else's work.
You seem to be mixed up here, if they are undertaking the same thing then they are duplicating each other's work, they may not know it but they are duplicating each other's work. Or do you have a different definition for "duplicate"? If so we're never come to any understanding.
If you were already aware of my technology
Can you please tell me where I said I was aware of your technology here? You even included where I said "By the fact I came up with it independently. I stole nothing from you instead using my own mind I created something." There's nothing in that where I said I was aware of "your technology" but it does specifically state that I came up with it "independently". It was only later when I said "make it better, or cheaper, (s)he should be able to." I should be able to make improvement, then you can take those and make more improvements. We can both have a piece of the pie.
No. I am trying to prevent you from making money from MY technology.
You mean the technology I developed INDEPENDENTLY. You may of put work into it but so did I. You and your patent however would say my efforts mean nothing.
If I develop a product over two years, it will surely cost me more to bring it to market, than it would cost a large company that simply copied my work.
Ever hear of Trade secrets? If you're invention is a trade secret it's already protected. Now how did that large company learn about it? Perhaps you didn't get a sign non disclosure agreement? Or did you but whoever violated it? If so sue them. On the other hand if they did come up with it independently as well then they should be able to try to profit as well. Maybe they build cheap ones that don't last long, then you can offer a higher quality product that last a long tyme. Kind of like Levi Strauss did in the 1800s. Typical clothing for miners and others living outdoors didn't last long. So he took the canvas material that was used for covered wagons and used it to make clothing and by using rivets in places it prevented seams from bursting thus his clothing lasted. Levi Strauss offered a better product so his business grew.
"Sure your tyme and effort is of value but so is mine. But by you having the patent it's saying mine tyme and effort is worth nothing as I couldn't do anything without your approval."
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to be saying that my time and effort has value, and yet you still wish to profit based on that effort wi
I can't see Gore getting the Peace Prize but Carter has done a lot to promote peace. Heck he was able to get Egypt and Israel to sign, and keep, a peace agreement as president. Since then he has been involved in monitoring elections to make sure they were free and his Habitat for Humanity has allowed many to own homes they never would of been able to own otherwise. All this helps in the cause of peace. And like Nixon before him he turned out to be a better elder statesman than a president.
If this is considered a "pro patent" study, then the case for the current strong patent regime is even weaker than I had thought.
I don't think the study is pro patents at all, if anything it's anti patents. For instance where it says: "For industries like software or computers, there is actually good reason to believe that imitation promotes innovation and that strong patents (long patents of broad scope) inhibit it. Society might be well served if such industries had only limited intellectual property protection. Moreover, many firms might genuinely welcome competition and the prospect of being imitated.3"
Watson and Crick didn't just discover the structure of DNA
You're right, Watson and Cricket didn't discover DNA at all, Rosalind Franklin discovered and described the double helix of DNA.
The same is true of software patents. If you believe in patents in general, but disagree with software patents, I think the true objection actually lies in the length of the term and excessive protection.
Though I used to believe in patents I no longer do and would rather see patents abolished.
On having patents? No I disagree, instead I agree with Adam Smith, patents should not be allowed. Especially today, we don't need more monopolies, we need less.
Privacy is not intellectual property, I don't know how anyone can say it is.
IP relation to the 4th amendment is more in terms of it being property
I also don't see how an idea can be property either, nor do I see how only one person can have the same idea. "Sorry you can't have that idea because it's mine."
Congress has declared that a patent is a form of personal property (like a car), and the invention it covers is therefore protectable as such.
Sure, something that physically concrete can be property but not an idea. Car ugh? I have a car, as do others, others having theirs doesn't interfere in me using mine. However if I have an idea I can't use it if someone else patented it first, even if I came up with it independently. Heck I may never even know about any patent, I could just get a lightbulb turn on in my brain about something I think is new. Too bad.
"2) Patents can be a) licensed and b) transferred -- if YOU want to develop a product that derives from MY technology, you need only approach me with your idea and come to terms with me on a royalty for your use of my patent.
I said it before but I guess I have to say it again. If I create something but you have a patent on part of you can for whatever reason compleatly refuse to allow me to use the patent, even if it makes it better. Even if I came up with it on my own. That prevents not encourages progress.
without real property rights, anyone else could build a Starbucks in your garage. It'd be awfully convenient for your neighbors
Ah, the keyword "real". I was wondering when that would come up. By you opening a Starbucks on my real property you are hindering if not preventing me from using my REAL, not FAKE, property. However if I independently come up with an idea, artificial "property", you patented my use of it does not prevent you from using it however you want.
you want to build something that requires my tech. to be incorporated -- and since it is inconvenient for you to pay me for it, you will take my work? By what right?
By the fact I came up with it independently. I stole nothing from you instead using my own mind I created something.
Is my time and effort of no value? Am I to work for no gain? Without my technology your technology would be impossible, and yet you would profit from the combined technologies fully without compensating me for my work?
Nobody is stopping you from trying to make money with your technology but you ARE trying to prevent me from doing the same. In a freemarket, and the Father of free market capitalism Adam Smith opposed patents, everyone would have the same chances of making money off an invention. If someone other than the inventor could make it better, or cheaper, (s)he should be able to. That, competition, is the essence of a free market.
Is my time and effort of no value? Am I to work for no gain?
Sure your tyme and effort is of value but so is mine. But by you having the patent it's saying mine tyme and effort is worth nothing as I couldn't do anything without your approval.
Without my technology your technology would be impossible, and yet you would profit from the combined technologies fully without compensating me for my work?
See above where I explain you have just as much an opportunity as anyone else if there are no patents. You could even incorporate my improvements in your product, much like open source works. With your patent however you can prevent me from making a profit even with my improvements.
Jefferson may not have believed that Ideas could be property, but he did support the concept of Patent Rights
In the beginning Thomas Jefferson opposed patents, saying "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." It was only after his friend James Madison convinced him when he came to supporting patents.
It's a constitutional right to property -- 4th Amendment (check it out).
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I must be blind, no matter how many tymes I read or search the text of the 4th Amendment I don't see anywhere in it where "intellectual" never mind "intellectual property" is mentioned once. Nor do I see "intellectual" anywhere else in the USA Constitution.
I would have little incentive to develop my water-heating technology without a patent
Without Patents, my technology (if marketable) would surely be recreated by some large corporation who would have no reason to pay me a royalty.
Who do you think owns a lot of patents? Those same corporations, well they don't really own the patents so much as patents are assigned to them by the employee who earned the patent. Or something like that. Without patents it would be harder for large corporations to exist.
The patent rewards it's creator, and encourages creation by ensuring the ability of the creator to earn money from his creation.
By giving one person a monopoly, especially for software and algorithms, others are in fact barred from further creations along the same line. General ideas should never receive any "protection", in a small number of cases at most only a specific implementation should be protected.
In regards to the Nobel winner's assertion that software patents reduce or restrict creation, I think he is wholly and completely wrong on this matter.
Again read Adam Smith sometime. "Patents were a conspiracy against the public" he said.
mankind has (thanks to property rights) been able to develop quite an expansive portfolio of technologies.
Far more software has been created without patent protection than software has been patented. Heck it's only been recently that any software was patented. How could all of that software been created without patents?
1) If I have a software patent, I would certainly be interested in developing derivative technologies of my OWN product.
And you'd be able to prevent a multitude of others from doing the same, the more people working on it the more things progress.
2) Patents can be a) licensed and b) transferred -- if YOU want to develop a product that derives from MY technology, you need only approach me with your idea and come to terms with me on a royalty for your use of my patent.
Or you can compleatly refuse and leave me with nothing. However without a patent then anyone else could make improvements without your approval.
With the banks I use, they don't actually keep my gold coins in a vault somewhere. The number on the statement is all there is.
It's more than just that, your bank balance is how much the bank owes you. Even if the bank is robbed it is still liable to pay you back your balance up to $100,000 per account if it's federally registered. If you walk into your bank and here's $100,000 in your account if you want to withdraw it they have to hand you $100,000. Of course if you try it you may find the FBI or IRS banging down your door to drag you to the housgow and charged as a drug dealer, by law financial institutions in the US have to report any financial transaction of $10,000 or more.
I can see reasonable arguments for copyrights lasting the lifetime of an artist or writer, but who in history has ever copyrighted a valuable work, and lived another 100 years?
There is no reason copyrights should last the writer's lifetime. In the USA copyrights are granted to encourage the creation of works of art, and progress of the sciences. A person who writes a blockbuster has no reason, financially, to write anything else. But make copyrights last 1 year and the writer is encouraged to write yearly to keep the money flowing. Copyrights may need to last longer for some works, I think it took Leo Tolstoy 7 years to write "War and Peace", if not that book then another of the classics took 7 years.
Yes it is. Only a few may be able to understand the machine code with more, but still not many, able to understand the object or source code however it's still written.
When was the last time your uncle sat down and READ Windows?
It's illegal to read Windows, the source is closed. However many can and do read at least parts of the Linux kernel as well as other open source programs whether GPLed or not such as slashcode.
The microwave, like software, performs an action.
The microwave is hardware, with computers it's the hardware such as the processor that does the work. The software is just the instructions the hardware follows.
Americans have a negative connotation with "socialism", which most of the rest of the world hasn't.
Any economic system where the community, government, owns land, natural resources, and the means of production is BAD! Despite what some open source advocates believe most people people work best and hardest when their and their family's economic situation improves. If everyone is treated the same there is no incentive to work for many. Sure some will work out of ego or because of love for what they do but I seriously doubt most people are that way. Take people who start businesses, many who do work a lot harder for their own business than they will for anybody else's business.
but I don't think I'll buy it until the first patches come out.
I don't see any need to get Leopard. I got my MBP 2 months ago and have no problem with Tiger. Well other than it doesn't always let me save a file where I want to.
If you do any development, the Xcode update in Leopard look quite nice.
It's my guess you don't need Leopard for the XCode update. A few days ago I got a dvd from Apple with new developer tools and software updates. But maybe it doesn't have all the updates that comes with the Leopard tools. Being new I now have to learn how to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, fixing that would go a long way towards fixing the patent situation. If the patent holder had to pay back all licensing and attorney fees for a patent ruled invalid, the patent holders themselves would be far more careful in asserting rights for "inventions" that are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.
As much as I don't like patents, this would hurt small inventors more than anyone else.
FalconYou aren't going to get away with convincing people they need a new TV.
This may be true where you are but here in the States many think they need a digital tv. A few weeks ago I went shopping for a new dvd player, a regular one not Blu-Ray or HD, and I only found a few. Meanwhile some of the people working in some of the stores I went to said I had to get a digital tv and replace my analogue tv. Only one person I talked to said anything about getting a digital converter.
FalconI'm tired of everything becoming digital. They're taking away our freedom.
What I mind about the switch is there's no choice, freedom.
And in the case of photo cameras, quality.
I prefer film generally however I still want to get a DSLR, which are approaching the resolution of film. Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III has a 21.1 MP full frame sensor. This is close to the pixel count of medium format digital backs from 2 or 3 years ago. I'll love to get this camera, then I could use the sames lenses I already have for my 35mm SLR with this camera without any magnification or cropping.
A couple weeks ago I wanted to watch a DVD. And I became slightly enraged at how I couldn't skip those damn publisher logo and copyright crap.
I don't like not being able to skip all the junk on disks either. Another thing that bothers me even more is that while I never had a VHS tape go bad or get eaten by the VCR, and I have hundreds, I've get a stack of DVD disks that won't play properly. And the oldest ones I have like this wouldn't play in 2 different players.
So what if we can get more channels?
This is 'bout the only thing about the switch to digital I like. I want more choices, even if the only channel I watch is CNN.
FalconI give up, you keep twisting things, like many lawyers, so this is my last post on this.
FalconWho told you that the warranty won't cover third-party RAM? They're wrong. Installing RAM into a MacBook Pro is easy, it's described in the manual as an user-installabe part, and in fact, except for the Mac mini, I always order the lowest amount of RAM from Apple and upgrade it myself. AppleCare never had an issue with that.
A Genius at a store told me that AppleCare at least won't cover third party RAM, but he did say, like you, that adding RAM is easy. That Apple designed the MacBooks and MBPs so RAM could be added or swapped by users. He didn't say though whether Apple checks RAM to see if it's Apple branded. The terms for AppleCare says Apple RAM modules are also covered under APP if owned by you and used with the Covered Equipment.(pdf) It says nothing about whether third party ram is covered though.
Falconthe vast majority of writers, musicians, and artists live on very low incomes, have no savings for retirement, and will need any tiny royalty that still comes in during their old age
I partially admitted this when I brought up that it took Leo Tolstoy 7 years to write "War and Peace". A few months back I had a discussion like this but my role was reversed, I was the one who wanted copyrights, and lasting 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Even in their old age though many writers can still write. Also some people will pay more for signed copies and such. While not a writer now 10 years ago I was one and and was writing articles for magazines and a book, so copyright was important to me. Now however I want to work as a photographer, who also use copyrights, but as stated above I'm not sure copyrights are needed.
However, the same argument in no way translates to software.
If there are copyrights I can see software being copyrighted, however I strongly oppose software patents!!!
FalconIt's illegal to read Windows, the source is closed.
Not quite correct, Sir! Besides the fact that you can license the Windows source code
you and I use "open source" differently then. Open source allows people to view the source code for free, not just those licensed to view the code. And some licenses allow modification and or resale of said code.
there are some countries (e.g. Germany) where laws are in effect that allow you - under certain circumstances - to disassemble and rewrite/modify software.
Maybe in other countries people are allowed to do so however MS is a US company and I live in the US. Without paying for that license I can't legally look at the Windows source code. Without paying anything though I can look at, read, and modify all the source code for Linux I want and can understand. Don't come to the conclusion I'm a Penguinhead though. Though I have 2 PCs with Linus, one is an old DEC Alpha setup as a dualboot booting both Linux and Windows NT 4.0 and the other is a PC I got preinstalled with Linux a bit over a year ago and haven't booted up the last 2 months, I am typing this on a MacBook Pro I got 2 months ago to replace my Windows PC.
FalconI can at least upgrade the hardware on lower end generic x86 systems (despite having embedded sound, graphic cards etc - I can add much better ones later on). I can't do that on lower end Macs.
Expandability of consumer Macs is one of the issues I have with Apple's Mac lines. The only Mac a person can really crack open and add cards or drives to is the Mac Pro, which starts as $2500. Related to it, I wish Apple had a tower for maybe $1000. It doesn't need the best or biggest drives or graphics but should have expansion slots. However some say most people can find a line of Macs that suit them and that by adding more lines, such as what I said above, would increase their costs without bringing much benefit. Only those who have demands for customization would get these.
FalconAdam Smith couldn't prevent anyone else from thinking, or using his idea of the Invisible Hand, but he could prevent you from publishing the words he used to describe it.
I doubt it, Adam Smith was against patents and copyrights, except for a limited tyme period, instead he believed in selling a better product at a lower cost. He equated monopolies as a mercantile system and he was dedicated to defeating this system. He wanted to replace it with that Invisible hand, a free market where there was a voluntary exchange.
So yes, two people can have the same idea, and both of them can often have their idea protected.
Not if one patents the idea. The other looses any right to it. In the US it's First to Invent whereas elsewhere it's First to File. If they both invent as the same tyme independently only one can get the patent.
Does it not serve the purpose of expediency that the person who first completed their work ought to gain the right to produce it?
No, not to the exclusion of the other, they should both have the same right to produce, or try to produce their invention.
A system that rewards the expedient party also provides for an efficient system where people planning to undertake research will be encouraged to discover what others might be working on, so as not to duplicate anyone else's work.
You seem to be mixed up here, if they are undertaking the same thing then they are duplicating each other's work, they may not know it but they are duplicating each other's work. Or do you have a different definition for "duplicate"? If so we're never come to any understanding.
If you were already aware of my technology
Can you please tell me where I said I was aware of your technology here? You even included where I said "By the fact I came up with it independently. I stole nothing from you instead using my own mind I created something." There's nothing in that where I said I was aware of "your technology" but it does specifically state that I came up with it "independently". It was only later when I said "make it better, or cheaper, (s)he should be able to." I should be able to make improvement, then you can take those and make more improvements. We can both have a piece of the pie.
No. I am trying to prevent you from making money from MY technology.
You mean the technology I developed INDEPENDENTLY. You may of put work into it but so did I. You and your patent however would say my efforts mean nothing.
If I develop a product over two years, it will surely cost me more to bring it to market, than it would cost a large company that simply copied my work.
Ever hear of Trade secrets? If you're invention is a trade secret it's already protected. Now how did that large company learn about it? Perhaps you didn't get a sign non disclosure agreement? Or did you but whoever violated it? If so sue them. On the other hand if they did come up with it independently as well then they should be able to try to profit as well. Maybe they build cheap ones that don't last long, then you can offer a higher quality product that last a long tyme. Kind of like Levi Strauss did in the 1800s. Typical clothing for miners and others living outdoors didn't last long. So he took the canvas material that was used for covered wagons and used it to make clothing and by using rivets in places it prevented seams from bursting thus his clothing lasted. Levi Strauss offered a better product so his business grew.
"Sure your tyme and effort is of value but so is mine. But by you having the patent it's saying mine tyme and effort is worth nothing as I couldn't do anything without your approval."
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to be saying that my time and effort has value, and yet you still wish to profit based on that effort wi
I can't see Gore getting the Peace Prize but Carter has done a lot to promote peace. Heck he was able to get Egypt and Israel to sign, and keep, a peace agreement as president. Since then he has been involved in monitoring elections to make sure they were free and his Habitat for Humanity has allowed many to own homes they never would of been able to own otherwise. All this helps in the cause of peace. And like Nixon before him he turned out to be a better elder statesman than a president.
FalconIf this is considered a "pro patent" study, then the case for the current strong patent regime is even weaker than I had thought.
I don't think the study is pro patents at all, if anything it's anti patents. For instance where it says: "For industries like software or computers, there is actually good reason to believe that imitation promotes innovation and that strong patents (long patents of broad scope) inhibit it. Society might be well served if such industries had only limited intellectual property protection. Moreover, many firms might genuinely welcome competition and the prospect of being imitated.3"
FalconWatson and Crick didn't just discover the structure of DNA
You're right, Watson and Cricket didn't discover DNA at all, Rosalind Franklin discovered and described the double helix of DNA.
The same is true of software patents. If you believe in patents in general, but disagree with software patents, I think the true objection actually lies in the length of the term and excessive protection.
Though I used to believe in patents I no longer do and would rather see patents abolished.
FalconAgree with what?
On having patents? No I disagree, instead I agree with Adam Smith, patents should not be allowed. Especially today, we don't need more monopolies, we need less.
FalconIntellectual property laws are created to restrict the rights of individuals for the benefit of society as a whole.
No, IP laws only benefit the owners of IP to the detriment of the rest of society.
FalconPrivacy is not intellectual property, I don't know how anyone can say it is.
IP relation to the 4th amendment is more in terms of it being property
I also don't see how an idea can be property either, nor do I see how only one person can have the same idea. "Sorry you can't have that idea because it's mine."
Congress has declared that a patent is a form of personal property (like a car), and the invention it covers is therefore protectable as such.
Sure, something that physically concrete can be property but not an idea. Car ugh? I have a car, as do others, others having theirs doesn't interfere in me using mine. However if I have an idea I can't use it if someone else patented it first, even if I came up with it independently. Heck I may never even know about any patent, I could just get a lightbulb turn on in my brain about something I think is new. Too bad.
"2) Patents can be a) licensed and b) transferred -- if YOU want to develop a product that derives from MY technology, you need only approach me with your idea and come to terms with me on a royalty for your use of my patent.
I said it before but I guess I have to say it again. If I create something but you have a patent on part of you can for whatever reason compleatly refuse to allow me to use the patent, even if it makes it better. Even if I came up with it on my own. That prevents not encourages progress.
without real property rights, anyone else could build a Starbucks in your garage. It'd be awfully convenient for your neighbors
Ah, the keyword "real". I was wondering when that would come up. By you opening a Starbucks on my real property you are hindering if not preventing me from using my REAL, not FAKE, property. However if I independently come up with an idea, artificial "property", you patented my use of it does not prevent you from using it however you want.
you want to build something that requires my tech. to be incorporated -- and since it is inconvenient for you to pay me for it, you will take my work? By what right?
By the fact I came up with it independently. I stole nothing from you instead using my own mind I created something.
Is my time and effort of no value? Am I to work for no gain? Without my technology your technology would be impossible, and yet you would profit from the combined technologies fully without compensating me for my work?
Nobody is stopping you from trying to make money with your technology but you ARE trying to prevent me from doing the same. In a freemarket, and the Father of free market capitalism Adam Smith opposed patents, everyone would have the same chances of making money off an invention. If someone other than the inventor could make it better, or cheaper, (s)he should be able to. That, competition, is the essence of a free market.
Is my time and effort of no value? Am I to work for no gain?
Sure your tyme and effort is of value but so is mine. But by you having the patent it's saying mine tyme and effort is worth nothing as I couldn't do anything without your approval.
Without my technology your technology would be impossible, and yet you would profit from the combined technologies fully without compensating me for my work?
See above where I explain you have just as much an opportunity as anyone else if there are no patents. You could even incorporate my improvements in your product, much like open source works. With your patent however you can prevent me from making a profit even with my improvements.
FalconJefferson may not have believed that Ideas could be property, but he did support the concept of Patent Rights
In the beginning Thomas Jefferson opposed patents, saying "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." It was only after his friend James Madison convinced him when he came to supporting patents.
FalconAs Jefferson (no mean author and inventor himself) put it,
Thanks for the link.
FalconIt's a constitutional right to property -- 4th Amendment (check it out).
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I must be blind, no matter how many tymes I read or search the text of the 4th Amendment I don't see anywhere in it where "intellectual" never mind "intellectual property" is mentioned once. Nor do I see "intellectual" anywhere else in the USA Constitution.
I would have little incentive to develop my water-heating technology without a patent
May I suggest you read Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, sometime. He opposed patents generally. He described patents as "necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly" .
Without Patents, my technology (if marketable) would surely be recreated by some large corporation who would have no reason to pay me a royalty.
Who do you think owns a lot of patents? Those same corporations, well they don't really own the patents so much as patents are assigned to them by the employee who earned the patent. Or something like that. Without patents it would be harder for large corporations to exist.
The patent rewards it's creator, and encourages creation by ensuring the ability of the creator to earn money from his creation.
By giving one person a monopoly, especially for software and algorithms, others are in fact barred from further creations along the same line. General ideas should never receive any "protection", in a small number of cases at most only a specific implementation should be protected.
In regards to the Nobel winner's assertion that software patents reduce or restrict creation, I think he is wholly and completely wrong on this matter.
Again read Adam Smith sometime. "Patents were a conspiracy against the public" he said.
mankind has (thanks to property rights) been able to develop quite an expansive portfolio of technologies.
Far more software has been created without patent protection than software has been patented. Heck it's only been recently that any software was patented. How could all of that software been created without patents?
1) If I have a software patent, I would certainly be interested in developing derivative technologies of my OWN product.
And you'd be able to prevent a multitude of others from doing the same, the more people working on it the more things progress.
2) Patents can be a) licensed and b) transferred -- if YOU want to develop a product that derives from MY technology, you need only approach me with your idea and come to terms with me on a royalty for your use of my patent.
Or you can compleatly refuse and leave me with nothing. However without a patent then anyone else could make improvements without your approval.
FalconSweden has a capitalist economic system mister Dumbo.
Can you point one place in my post you replied to where I said anything about Sweden? Nope, so who's the Dumbo?
FalconWith the banks I use, they don't actually keep my gold coins in a vault somewhere. The number on the statement is all there is.
It's more than just that, your bank balance is how much the bank owes you. Even if the bank is robbed it is still liable to pay you back your balance up to $100,000 per account if it's federally registered. If you walk into your bank and here's $100,000 in your account if you want to withdraw it they have to hand you $100,000. Of course if you try it you may find the FBI or IRS banging down your door to drag you to the housgow and charged as a drug dealer, by law financial institutions in the US have to report any financial transaction of $10,000 or more.
FalconI can see reasonable arguments for copyrights lasting the lifetime of an artist or writer, but who in history has ever copyrighted a valuable work, and lived another 100 years?
There is no reason copyrights should last the writer's lifetime. In the USA copyrights are granted to encourage the creation of works of art, and progress of the sciences. A person who writes a blockbuster has no reason, financially, to write anything else. But make copyrights last 1 year and the writer is encouraged to write yearly to keep the money flowing. Copyrights may need to last longer for some works, I think it took Leo Tolstoy 7 years to write "War and Peace", if not that book then another of the classics took 7 years.
FalconSoftware is written work?
Yes it is. Only a few may be able to understand the machine code with more, but still not many, able to understand the object or source code however it's still written.
When was the last time your uncle sat down and READ Windows?
It's illegal to read Windows, the source is closed. However many can and do read at least parts of the Linux kernel as well as other open source programs whether GPLed or not such as slashcode.
The microwave, like software, performs an action.
The microwave is hardware, with computers it's the hardware such as the processor that does the work. The software is just the instructions the hardware follows.
FalconAmericans have a negative connotation with "socialism", which most of the rest of the world hasn't.
Any economic system where the community, government, owns land, natural resources, and the means of production is BAD! Despite what some open source advocates believe most people people work best and hardest when their and their family's economic situation improves. If everyone is treated the same there is no incentive to work for many. Sure some will work out of ego or because of love for what they do but I seriously doubt most people are that way. Take people who start businesses, many who do work a lot harder for their own business than they will for anybody else's business.
Falconbut I don't think I'll buy it until the first patches come out.
I don't see any need to get Leopard. I got my MBP 2 months ago and have no problem with Tiger. Well other than it doesn't always let me save a file where I want to.
FalconIf you do any development, the Xcode update in Leopard look quite nice.
It's my guess you don't need Leopard for the XCode update. A few days ago I got a dvd from Apple with new developer tools and software updates. But maybe it doesn't have all the updates that comes with the Leopard tools. Being new I now have to learn how to use them.
Falcon