One of the key ideas behind PNG was to replace GIF. But the PNG developers blew it by not specifying in the same kind of animation capabilities that Netscape's mutated GIF -- which was really the standard -- offered. It didn't kill PNG, but it sure as heck crippled acceptance severely. And that was a darned shame. Opportunity lost on several levels.
And the mega-uber-bandaid MNG -- you don't want to get me started on what a mess that whole screwup was and is.
But that wasn't what the issue was. The presented point I was replying to (and which I quoted) was that Apple didn't just have the hardware capabilities, they used them in a general way, which was smart. I was saying that the Amiga also had interesting and varied graphics capabilities and the OS used them, and that happened first. The Amiga's graphics capabilities weren't just something you could "poke" and "peek" into momentary unusual modes, they were broadly supported by the OS. For instance, I wasn't saying that the Amiga was first to have multi-resolution in hardware, I was saying that it was the first to broadly support multi-resolution in the OS.
The Amiga also had accellerated graphics ops in a graphics co-processor they simply called "the blitter." And a very nice windowing OS. For its time, it was really quite amazing.
As for multi-resolution not being necessary, sure. That doesn't mean it wouldn't use useful, though.
You're confused. The new hardware came with OS3, which understood it. OS3 also understood the older hardware. The OS was maturing and so was the hardware -- and everything worked just fine. You don't have an issue here.
Multiple resolutions have numerous uses. Fewer bitplanes means less bandwidth consumed. Fewer bitplanes in one area means more bandwidth available for other screen areas. Sprites allow XY manipulation of graphics elements without having to disturb other bitmaps in any way. Sprites in various resolutions allow the display to meet the needs of the software, rather than the other way around. If you're not used to thinking in these terms, then you can easily miss the benefits. The cost, of course, is additional complexity at the hardware level to take the load off the software, complexity that can, if care is not taken, lead to compatibility problems down the road.
And that whole "workstation class equipment" thing... in its time, the Amiga was workstation class equipment, far outstripping the PC and the Mac of the time in native capabilities.
The Amiga was never a bottom feeder in either the hardware of software realms. The parent company, Commodore, was the bottom feeder. We developers used to say that if Commodore owned the Kentucky Fried Chicken francise, they'd market it as "Lukewarm, Dead Bird." It was very frustrating to try and work in the marketing worldview that Commodore created.
Making use of the available graphics power just makes sense, and Apple was smart to be the first to realize this.
Mmm, no. Commodore was the first to really do this. The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware. The OS used them, and used them well. When a more advanced Amiga came with more graphics capabilities, the OS automatically configured them and used them as well. Apple was me too, much later.:)
But that's OK. Apple knows how to market -- that more than makes up for coming expensive, late and/or weakly with a number of things. Plus they provide a really nice end user experience.
It's not "funny" that I didn't address the rest, I didn't address it because I don't disagree with it for the most part, and don't consider it "wrong" even where I do disagree with it. I spoke up where you were flat-out-wrong, and that's the only issue I was poking at. I don't always say when I disagree; but I do almost always speak up when there is a factual error, like the one you made.
As for the rest: The system is broken, I want no part of it because it is broken, I don't think it can be fixed, I've found a way to do well without partaking of the system and that's where I'm at.
Remember, at the end of all that, the statement I responded to -- which one it was I made very clear by quoting it -- is still quite wrong. If you fix it, you'll have a solid argument, factually speaking. You can fix it by limiting the domain to "knowledge benefits" or by saying something as simple as "there are a few benefits, but these benefits do not accrue..." Leave it as is, and it's still wrong. No more, no less.
As for our founding fathers, no, I don't blame them. But I do blame the legislators and lawyers and corporations that came after them. A whole lot. Which I am guessing is probably just about how you feel.
You can't have it both ways. Either it is a secret so nobody can reproduce it (or benefit from the knowledge), or it is easy to figure out and therefore isn't a secret.
Absolutely not. I can have it both ways, because there is a middle ground; and almost everything falls into it. There are many things that are going to be variously difficult to re-invent, and because of this, trade secret will usually provide an interval during which one can market an innovation without competition. The interval will naturally be proportional to the amount of interest in the innovation and the degree of difficulty.
That's not a benefit in the context of progress of knowledge
So? I am not an innovation instructor. I never signed an "I will teach you" document, and I utterly reject anyone trying to shoehorn me into some "social contract" that I (a) didn't have any part in crafting, (b) don't agree with, and (c) believe is inherently harmful to society.
I was responding to one point that you made. My counter-point is that there are benefits to be had outside of those that accrue to the inventor. And the fact is, there are. I laid them out for you. They may not be the benefits that you are militating for, but to quote F. Perls, "I am not in this world to live up to your expectations." That's your job. I am also not in the world to live up to the more fruity ideas our legislature foists off upon us. If they want my source code, they'll need to (a) get a court order and (b) get to it before I destroy it. At that point, they have it, but they stole it. Just because the government authorizes theft doesn't make it any less theft. I created it. It is mine. Not yours, not theirs, not anyone elses. Mine.
Now, I do agree that the patent system is broken. I do not, at least offhand, think that it can be fixed. The barriers are too high: political, corporate (which of course turn into political barriers via funds-inspired political moves) and widespread public apathy for IP issues. My feeling is that finding a viable solution within the current system is the only option open. That's what I've done.
It isn't my thesis, it is the reason patents exist in the first place
No matter -- I still disagree with the reasoning. What you call a "reason", I call blatent self-entitlement to the property of others. The kind of thing thieves do -- it's just that these particular thieves were in power when they did it, so it's supposed to be a "good thing." An intellectual welfare system of sorts. The bottom line is that I cannot be forced to reveal how I do things, or to do things for the benefit of a mental welfare state.
The premise seems to me to be almost always wrong. The number of innovations that cannot be reproduced by someone else once they are known to be possible are, IMHO, a very, very small set. The reproducible ones may not be trivial, but they're not "lost" for all of that. They're just not free -- someone has to do some work to get to them -- which I suspect is your, and society's, underlying objection. You know what? Tough patooties. You want my ideas? You'll have to work for them. They're just ideas. You can do it. But... you want the fruits my ideas? OK. That'll be $49.95.:)
Oh, I'm sure He will, just as soon as he gets done drowning the victims of the tsunamis, thinning the survivors out with cholera and the many other delightful microbial creations of His that He has designed to thrive in the aftermath of his latest little geophysical design flaw (or intentional event, you pick.) That is, unless he is still too busy giving people aids, cancer, creating babies without brains, inflicting stupidity on the masses (median IQ is 100, never forget that), allowing the rape, pillage and assult of the innocent and so on. He is a busy little beaver, your God is.
If I ever get to stand in front of His throne, I'm definitely going to use my tiny little moment to give Him the finger.
Trade secrets don't help anyone but the pockets of the inventor.
No, that's just not right. They also help other inventors, and they can help the consumer as well.
It works like this: I do work, I sell it for what the market will bear or less, and the portion of the market that is willing to buy benefits from the feature.
But I also benefit from not having to spend money on patent searches, allocate funds for patent defense, pay for lawyers, and travel. This benefit to me can turn into a direct benefit for the consumer -- because it costs me (a lot!) less to bring a trade secret based innovation to market, I can (a) charge less, which benefits the consumer, or (b) charge the same, which benefits me, or (c) a mix of the two, which benefits both me and the consumer.
I support the idea of a free market. If you don't want my stuff, or think I charge too much for my stuff, then you are entirely free to go invent your own stuff -- remember, I'm not putting any patents in your way -- or find someone else who will invent the same thing or something similar, or already has done so. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Now, there's another way to look at benefit here. Because I don't put patents in another developer's way, the same types of benefits, and more, accrue to other developers:
Other developers can feel free to invent stuff like my stuff, perhaps exactly like my stuff, and all they'll get from me is "yeah, but have you seen what I invented this morning?" This means no fees, no worries, no nervousness about me coming after someone in court. These are all good things -- definitely a benefit.
Other developers are also free to innovate without paying extra costs -- patents, lawyers, travel, research -- this makes their products less expensive to develop and that either turns into more profits (benefit for them) or cheaper price (benefit for the consumer) or a mix of both (benefit for both.)
Another thing. Because of the way my company chooses to innovate, some free software person could look at our products, say to themselves "I like that, think I'll put it in the GIMP" and the only thing they have to do is figure out how. There, several things will happen. First, the innovation (or a functionally equivalent version of it) have made it to another venue; this may be open sourced, depending on the new inventor; and pressure is put upon me to innovate some more.
The same thing applies in academia. Trade secrets leave academics free to research and publish along any line they care to go merrily thinking. No minefields, no concern about forking off the results to a grad student's new company, etc. Benefit, benefit, benefit. They can publish (after all, I didn't) and they can get some glory for figuring it all out, just like a free software person can. Good things, all around. Also -- I've provided the hint that (whatever it is) can be done, and that is a great start along any trail of research.
All of these are really good things. There are some things that aren't winners, most notably that I don't get to eat off that one innovation for 15 years (or whatever the term of a patent is) but frankly, I don't object to that. If all I have in me is one innovation, I should be probably working in food service, not software development.
I don't think you can reasonably say that the only benefit of the trade secret approach is to the original inventor's pocket. It's just not so. There are many other good things that happen as a direct result of this approach.
Your thesis that trade-secret based innovations will be lost -- depends either on the idea that only I can invent these things (highly unlikely, but at least it is flattering) or that the idea isn't worth someone else's time... and in that case, maybe it should be lost.:)
One actual issue is duplication of effort; but you know what? There are plenty of good programmers wandering around. This particular i
Well, as someone who has produced some reasonably innovative things in both hardware and software, I can tell you that I innovate for a number of reasons, none of which make me particularly interested in obtaining patents. First of all, I run a software company, and cool features drive sales. Sales feed me and my employees, pay the insurance coverage, etc.; that's the money connection. Patents not required. Trade secret is plenty of protection, it gives you a window to sell the "thing." Sometimes it gives you an amazingly long window -- some things we have offered for some time still haven't appeared anywhere else, which both surprises and pleases me. Secondly, innovating is fun. Creating something new and interesting is... interesting. Fun. Cool. Satisfying. Validating. All of that, and more. Third, innovating is like any other task, in that if you train yourself to think in a manner that produces new ideas, you're a lot more likely to have them, and then #1 comes into play again. Or to put it another way, the more you do it, the better you'll get at it.
Patents do not tempt me. First, a good (solid) patent is expensive, both in terms of time and money. SOlid can be an illusion, too. Either here or on Kuro5hin, I saw a tag line in someone's message that mentioned a patent they hoped to make some money from. Or maybe I saw it on the web site. Anyway, what it appeared to be on a quick look was a method for selecting a bunch of different types of compression for an image format based upon an analysis of compressability for the local cell. If that's what it was, then we did it way back in 1985, called it PMBC and used it commercially for years. It was really fun, we presented graphs during the analysis of the image and you could see what modes were most common. Filters that eventually ended up in PNG were in there, too. See what I mean? So much for solid ideas. If no one says anything, or doesn't file for a patent at all, how do you know you're not just wasting your time and money? Of course, you don't.
Second, a patent completely exposes what you're doing (in sharp contrast to trade secret.) If you're laboring under the idea that only big companies that are easily found and attacked in court are the source of "they copied my idea!" problems, you're sadly mistaken.
Third, if someone infringes, it is very expensive to prosecute them, and if they don't have bucks themselves, there is nothing to be gained from it other than shutting them down, which isn't worth spit more often than not.
Patents, some people claim, allow you to sell an idea. That's fine, as far as it goes. If that's what you want to do. However, I simply observe that if you do not have a patent, what's to stop you from selling your idea then? You can still show it to people, sell it if you can convince them they want it, etc. For that matter, you can make them buy a patent, if they're so minded. Now -- if your idea is so freaking simple that once you show the results of it to someone, then they know what to do, then I humbly submit it wasn't worth patenting anyway -- my opinion (which isn't in line with how patents work by any means) is that trivial things are, and should remain, trivial.
Buncha snot-nosed little whippersnappers, that's what. When I wrote my first image compression program, I had to push the chads out of my paper tape. I had to open a window to let the heat from the processor out. I had to... Look, without
Lenna, we can't be sure this is an image algorithm at all. Probably just some genetic code gotten out of hand. Where's my raid, anyway? Oh. It's stuffed full of JPEGs. Including a beautiful hires one of lenna, considerably more than her head. See above link.:)
FWIW, GIF is a far different situation; Unisys played bait-and-switch such that the developer community was widely using the format before they became aware it was encumbered.
Fractal image compression was initially closely held, agressively marketed to developers (including us) for considerable bucks, and failed to make inroads in that venue. Now we'll have to wait for the patents to expire to consider it again -- it's been around for years and has gone literally nowhere, so I think the grandparent post had it pretty much spot-on.
"When the Internet was created nobody envisioned that the killer app (application) would be e-mail or instant messaging.''
Web browsing is the killer app, if anything is. IM is fun, but email is best described as the app I'd most like to kill. Is that the same thing as a "killer app"?
Perhaps your calculations may missed something -- I don't think solar panels last thirty years -- good ones go to significantly lower efficiencies by about twenty, if I recall correctly. If so, then so far solar panels aren't anywhere near reasonable in terms of ROI. Unless you're in a supply bereft environment such as outer space, and dollars in aren't a concern.
I could still buy two, maybe even three x86-based machines with comparable specifications.
The most important specification for any computer is what useful applications software it can run as compared to whatever else is a possible candidate for the role in question. Period. End of story.
Making a comparison between OS X and Windows isn't reasonable when you actually look at what you can use the machine for.
Computers are only as valuable as the sum of the hardware and software.
If Apple released a sub-$500 Mac, it would make a lot of sense to me; it might be worth purchasing as an item of interest to go alongside my workhorses. I might even find something worthwhile for it to do, since lots of Linux-like software can be made to run on it. But it might still be too expensive -- after all, you have to add the cost of the software, which for me would probably include Photoshop and similar items. Maybe sub-$300 would be more reasonable for a proprietary architecture. Kind of like a playstation. What I do know is I'm not shelling out $800/US for a Mac. Ever.:)
I metamod at every offered opportunity. What I was saying is, why can't we offer some commentary the way a regular moderation does -- not just "disagree" or "agree", but "this moderation was jaw droppingly stupid", "this moderation was silly", this moderation was funny", etc.
Check my journal for some commentary on moderation. It's not like I haven't thought about it. It's just when someone really falls outside any bound of rationality, they way they did with my earlier post's "Flamebait" mod, I tend to speak up. No point it letting some moderator with an IQ smaller than their shoe size get by unscathed.:)
The grandparent compares assult by strangling to an individual's voluntary fashion expression, I point out that this is ridiculous, and it's "Flamebait"?
Man, that moderator (as well as the grandparent poster) needs exposure outside the psychobabble universe really, really bad.:) I love slashdot. The only qualfication you need to moderate post from people a lot smarter than you are is to not down-rank "Commander" Taco. Many moderations here have more inherent humor in them than most posts marked "funny.' All I want to know is, why can't we meta-mod moderations, "funny?" Not to mention"jaw-droppingly stupid"?
Your attempt to stretch an anology between an enhanced display of sexuality and the act of strangulation indicates that you have some serious unresolved problems, not to mention a complete lack of comprehension of sexuality. Do us all a favor; stay at home with your self-help books.
Most of what you said seems to be bewildered left-wing nonsense, and I'll just ignore it unless you can put some solid reasoning behind it. However, this bit is worth responding to:
You've got to stop to think that maybe the system has screwed that guy barging into your house too. Maybe its screwed him so much that the only thing he can do is barge in.
No. I don't. There is absolutely no reason or pressure for me to do such a thing. And any potential assailant had best realize it before the decision is made to invade my premises or assault my family. It is not in the least any concern of mine what motivated such a person. It is not my responsibility to "solve their problems" at that point. They've gone way too far. What I'm going to do at this juncture is eliminate their problems, as well as the problems they pose for everyone else. I take a risk here; but no one else does. I can live with that.
From your message, I take it that you have a mindset that says that risk to your family is acceptable if the person who brings the risk to you isn't "ok." Additionally, you think that letting this person go off and assault others is ok, also. That does not in any way resemble my position on these matters.
I take it as a matter of personal responsibility: I know this person is a threat to people and society; it is my obligation to do something about it, because (a) it is the right thing to do, and (b), because I am able to do so, and (c), because I know for a fact that society won't adequately deal with the problem if I leave it to them, and (d) because if I don't deal with it -- and this is really important, you should pay attention -- then it is my responsibility when this moron enters your home and hurts your family, and I can't live with that. No one who attacks my family is likely to survive in any condition where they would ever be able to attack your family. Even if I let them live. Even if it would have been ok with you. No matter if you can understand the issues or not. I understand them; that's the key here. Once you understand that, you understand why you shouldn't ever screw with me or mine.
Which is of course absolutely fine and dandy. Right up until your daughter points out that the "thug" you just shot dead was, in fact, her new boyfriend.
See, you make assumptions, you're going to screw up your argument. Where did I say I was going to shoot anyone? You're assuming I require, or use, a firearm to deal with invaders of my home. I don't. My physical abilities are almost certain to be sufficient, and are of course much, much safer to use than a gun -- only the person I'm after is at risk. Guns shoot through walls, and there is little control over the amount of damage you do. With hand to hand, there's always plenty of time for someone to say "It's (whoever it is)" and avoid having their neck, and possibly other optional parts, broken.
There's more. By the content of your message, you're telling me that you expect kids to sneak partners by parents. This kind of issue arises from a severe lack of parenting skills. Perhaps the parent(s) is/are afraid they'll discover sex, and/or drugs, and/or rock and roll. In that case, the parent(s), and the kid(s), will have problems, sure enough. It is perfectly fair that the parent(s) have to deal with these problems, since they caused them. But they're not problems for me and mine -- if my kids want to bring a partner in, they'll let me know, and there won't be any misunderstandings. They are well aware that I won't object. They are also well aware that it is my home - not theirs - and they are 100% obligated to keep me informed. Let me emphasize that: It's not a courtesy, it's an obligation. And they know it.
The courts aren't perfect, but they bring in checks and balances. Vigilantism usually operates on a presumption of guilt, and that is not acceptable in a civilised society.
First of all, I have my own checks and balances, and they are far more conservative than any US court would ever think of applying. I described them in the grandparent; if you had read them and understood what you were reading, you wouldn't have your foot so deep in your mouth right now.
Secondly, the courts operate on a presumption of guilt. Why do you think they jail people before the "trial"? The fact is, if they decide you might have done something, you're screwed, starting right then. There is, of course, a chance you'll be able to come out with some remaining fragments of your life intact, assuming you have the funds for the required level of legal defense and a modicum of luck, but even if you do, you've probably already lost your job, the income from your job, the ability to get a new job, been ostracized by large chunks of society, etc. The US legal system's most profound lie is "innocent until proven guilty." The fact is that you are "guilty until proven innocent, and punished either way." That's the way it works. No way around it. Checks? You bet. Write them to the lawyers and bail-bonds-persons. Balances? You bet - your future is balanced on a knife edge. The courts are far more broken than any citizen's direct response to a crime being comitted against them right at that point in time by a known assailant.
The bottom line, though, is: Don't sneak into my home, don't assault my family, and you have nothing to worry about. Try it, and your next of kin will be the ones doing the worrying. Don't like it? Frankly, I don't care. Liberal hand-wringing for the "rights" of home invaders only serves as a source of amusment to me. You surrender all your rights if you choose to cross my threshold without my permission. It is a matter of personal responsibility -- something liberals are mightily confused about. My family, however, isn't. Every one of them is a martial artist, every one of them understands responsibility to their very core. And every one of them could tear your average home invader into little bloody fragments without breaking a sweat. I love my kids.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And the mega-uber-bandaid MNG -- you don't want to get me started on what a mess that whole screwup was and is.
But that wasn't what the issue was. The presented point I was replying to (and which I quoted) was that Apple didn't just have the hardware capabilities, they used them in a general way, which was smart. I was saying that the Amiga also had interesting and varied graphics capabilities and the OS used them, and that happened first. The Amiga's graphics capabilities weren't just something you could "poke" and "peek" into momentary unusual modes, they were broadly supported by the OS. For instance, I wasn't saying that the Amiga was first to have multi-resolution in hardware, I was saying that it was the first to broadly support multi-resolution in the OS.
As for multi-resolution not being necessary, sure. That doesn't mean it wouldn't use useful, though.
You're confused. The new hardware came with OS3, which understood it. OS3 also understood the older hardware. The OS was maturing and so was the hardware -- and everything worked just fine. You don't have an issue here.
And that whole "workstation class equipment" thing... in its time, the Amiga was workstation class equipment, far outstripping the PC and the Mac of the time in native capabilities.
The Amiga was never a bottom feeder in either the hardware of software realms. The parent company, Commodore, was the bottom feeder. We developers used to say that if Commodore owned the Kentucky Fried Chicken francise, they'd market it as "Lukewarm, Dead Bird." It was very frustrating to try and work in the marketing worldview that Commodore created.
Mmm, no. Commodore was the first to really do this. The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware. The OS used them, and used them well. When a more advanced Amiga came with more graphics capabilities, the OS automatically configured them and used them as well. Apple was me too, much later. :)
But that's OK. Apple knows how to market -- that more than makes up for coming expensive, late and/or weakly with a number of things. Plus they provide a really nice end user experience.
It was wrong. :)
It's not "funny" that I didn't address the rest, I didn't address it because I don't disagree with it for the most part, and don't consider it "wrong" even where I do disagree with it. I spoke up where you were flat-out-wrong, and that's the only issue I was poking at. I don't always say when I disagree; but I do almost always speak up when there is a factual error, like the one you made.
As for the rest: The system is broken, I want no part of it because it is broken, I don't think it can be fixed, I've found a way to do well without partaking of the system and that's where I'm at.
Remember, at the end of all that, the statement I responded to -- which one it was I made very clear by quoting it -- is still quite wrong. If you fix it, you'll have a solid argument, factually speaking. You can fix it by limiting the domain to "knowledge benefits" or by saying something as simple as "there are a few benefits, but these benefits do not accrue..." Leave it as is, and it's still wrong. No more, no less.
As for our founding fathers, no, I don't blame them. But I do blame the legislators and lawyers and corporations that came after them. A whole lot. Which I am guessing is probably just about how you feel.
Absolutely not. I can have it both ways, because there is a middle ground; and almost everything falls into it. There are many things that are going to be variously difficult to re-invent, and because of this, trade secret will usually provide an interval during which one can market an innovation without competition. The interval will naturally be proportional to the amount of interest in the innovation and the degree of difficulty.
So? I am not an innovation instructor. I never signed an "I will teach you" document, and I utterly reject anyone trying to shoehorn me into some "social contract" that I (a) didn't have any part in crafting, (b) don't agree with, and (c) believe is inherently harmful to society.
I was responding to one point that you made. My counter-point is that there are benefits to be had outside of those that accrue to the inventor. And the fact is, there are. I laid them out for you. They may not be the benefits that you are militating for, but to quote F. Perls, "I am not in this world to live up to your expectations." That's your job. I am also not in the world to live up to the more fruity ideas our legislature foists off upon us. If they want my source code, they'll need to (a) get a court order and (b) get to it before I destroy it. At that point, they have it, but they stole it. Just because the government authorizes theft doesn't make it any less theft. I created it. It is mine. Not yours, not theirs, not anyone elses. Mine.
Now, I do agree that the patent system is broken. I do not, at least offhand, think that it can be fixed. The barriers are too high: political, corporate (which of course turn into political barriers via funds-inspired political moves) and widespread public apathy for IP issues. My feeling is that finding a viable solution within the current system is the only option open. That's what I've done.
No matter -- I still disagree with the reasoning. What you call a "reason", I call blatent self-entitlement to the property of others. The kind of thing thieves do -- it's just that these particular thieves were in power when they did it, so it's supposed to be a "good thing." An intellectual welfare system of sorts. The bottom line is that I cannot be forced to reveal how I do things, or to do things for the benefit of a mental welfare state.
The premise seems to me to be almost always wrong. The number of innovations that cannot be reproduced by someone else once they are known to be possible are, IMHO, a very, very small set. The reproducible ones may not be trivial, but they're not "lost" for all of that. They're just not free -- someone has to do some work to get to them -- which I suspect is your, and society's, underlying objection. You know what? Tough patooties. You want my ideas? You'll have to work for them. They're just ideas. You can do it. But... you want the fruits my ideas? OK. That'll be $49.95. :)
<stand>
</stand>If I ever get to stand in front of His throne, I'm definitely going to use my tiny little moment to give Him the finger.
You have a nice day, now. :)
No, that's just not right. They also help other inventors, and they can help the consumer as well.
It works like this: I do work, I sell it for what the market will bear or less, and the portion of the market that is willing to buy benefits from the feature.
But I also benefit from not having to spend money on patent searches, allocate funds for patent defense, pay for lawyers, and travel. This benefit to me can turn into a direct benefit for the consumer -- because it costs me (a lot!) less to bring a trade secret based innovation to market, I can (a) charge less, which benefits the consumer, or (b) charge the same, which benefits me, or (c) a mix of the two, which benefits both me and the consumer.
I support the idea of a free market. If you don't want my stuff, or think I charge too much for my stuff, then you are entirely free to go invent your own stuff -- remember, I'm not putting any patents in your way -- or find someone else who will invent the same thing or something similar, or already has done so. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Now, there's another way to look at benefit here. Because I don't put patents in another developer's way, the same types of benefits, and more, accrue to other developers:
Other developers can feel free to invent stuff like my stuff, perhaps exactly like my stuff, and all they'll get from me is "yeah, but have you seen what I invented this morning?" This means no fees, no worries, no nervousness about me coming after someone in court. These are all good things -- definitely a benefit.
Other developers are also free to innovate without paying extra costs -- patents, lawyers, travel, research -- this makes their products less expensive to develop and that either turns into more profits (benefit for them) or cheaper price (benefit for the consumer) or a mix of both (benefit for both.)
Another thing. Because of the way my company chooses to innovate, some free software person could look at our products, say to themselves "I like that, think I'll put it in the GIMP" and the only thing they have to do is figure out how. There, several things will happen. First, the innovation (or a functionally equivalent version of it) have made it to another venue; this may be open sourced, depending on the new inventor; and pressure is put upon me to innovate some more.
The same thing applies in academia. Trade secrets leave academics free to research and publish along any line they care to go merrily thinking. No minefields, no concern about forking off the results to a grad student's new company, etc. Benefit, benefit, benefit. They can publish (after all, I didn't) and they can get some glory for figuring it all out, just like a free software person can. Good things, all around. Also -- I've provided the hint that (whatever it is) can be done, and that is a great start along any trail of research.
All of these are really good things. There are some things that aren't winners, most notably that I don't get to eat off that one innovation for 15 years (or whatever the term of a patent is) but frankly, I don't object to that. If all I have in me is one innovation, I should be probably working in food service, not software development.
I don't think you can reasonably say that the only benefit of the trade secret approach is to the original inventor's pocket. It's just not so. There are many other good things that happen as a direct result of this approach.
Your thesis that trade-secret based innovations will be lost -- depends either on the idea that only I can invent these things (highly unlikely, but at least it is flattering) or that the idea isn't worth someone else's time... and in that case, maybe it should be lost. :)
One actual issue is duplication of effort; but you know what? There are plenty of good programmers wandering around. This particular i
Patents do not tempt me. First, a good (solid) patent is expensive, both in terms of time and money. SOlid can be an illusion, too. Either here or on Kuro5hin, I saw a tag line in someone's message that mentioned a patent they hoped to make some money from. Or maybe I saw it on the web site. Anyway, what it appeared to be on a quick look was a method for selecting a bunch of different types of compression for an image format based upon an analysis of compressability for the local cell. If that's what it was, then we did it way back in 1985, called it PMBC and used it commercially for years. It was really fun, we presented graphs during the analysis of the image and you could see what modes were most common. Filters that eventually ended up in PNG were in there, too. See what I mean? So much for solid ideas. If no one says anything, or doesn't file for a patent at all, how do you know you're not just wasting your time and money? Of course, you don't.
Second, a patent completely exposes what you're doing (in sharp contrast to trade secret.) If you're laboring under the idea that only big companies that are easily found and attacked in court are the source of "they copied my idea!" problems, you're sadly mistaken.
Third, if someone infringes, it is very expensive to prosecute them, and if they don't have bucks themselves, there is nothing to be gained from it other than shutting them down, which isn't worth spit more often than not.
Patents, some people claim, allow you to sell an idea. That's fine, as far as it goes. If that's what you want to do. However, I simply observe that if you do not have a patent, what's to stop you from selling your idea then? You can still show it to people, sell it if you can convince them they want it, etc. For that matter, you can make them buy a patent, if they're so minded. Now -- if your idea is so freaking simple that once you show the results of it to someone, then they know what to do, then I humbly submit it wasn't worth patenting anyway -- my opinion (which isn't in line with how patents work by any means) is that trivial things are, and should remain, trivial.
But that's just me. :)
Buncha snot-nosed little whippersnappers, that's what. When I wrote my first image compression program, I had to push the chads out of my paper tape. I had to open a window to let the heat from the processor out. I had to... Look, without Lenna, we can't be sure this is an image algorithm at all. Probably just some genetic code gotten out of hand. Where's my raid, anyway? Oh. It's stuffed full of JPEGs. Including a beautiful hires one of lenna, considerably more than her head. See above link. :)
Fractal image compression was initially closely held, agressively marketed to developers (including us) for considerable bucks, and failed to make inroads in that venue. Now we'll have to wait for the patents to expire to consider it again -- it's been around for years and has gone literally nowhere, so I think the grandparent post had it pretty much spot-on.
Web browsing is the killer app, if anything is. IM is fun, but email is best described as the app I'd most like to kill. Is that the same thing as a "killer app"?
The most important specification for any computer is what useful applications software it can run as compared to whatever else is a possible candidate for the role in question. Period. End of story.
Making a comparison between OS X and Windows isn't reasonable when you actually look at what you can use the machine for.
Computers are only as valuable as the sum of the hardware and software.
If Apple released a sub-$500 Mac, it would make a lot of sense to me; it might be worth purchasing as an item of interest to go alongside my workhorses. I might even find something worthwhile for it to do, since lots of Linux-like software can be made to run on it. But it might still be too expensive -- after all, you have to add the cost of the software, which for me would probably include Photoshop and similar items. Maybe sub-$300 would be more reasonable for a proprietary architecture. Kind of like a playstation. What I do know is I'm not shelling out $800/US for a Mac. Ever. :)
Check my journal for some commentary on moderation. It's not like I haven't thought about it. It's just when someone really falls outside any bound of rationality, they way they did with my earlier post's "Flamebait" mod, I tend to speak up. No point it letting some moderator with an IQ smaller than their shoe size get by unscathed. :)
The grandparent compares assult by strangling to an individual's voluntary fashion expression, I point out that this is ridiculous, and it's "Flamebait"?
Man, that moderator (as well as the grandparent poster) needs exposure outside the psychobabble universe really, really bad. :) I love slashdot. The only qualfication you need to moderate post from people a lot smarter than you are is to not down-rank "Commander" Taco. Many moderations here have more inherent humor in them than most posts marked "funny.' All I want to know is, why can't we meta-mod moderations, "funny?" Not to mention"jaw-droppingly stupid"?
Your attempt to stretch an anology between an enhanced display of sexuality and the act of strangulation indicates that you have some serious unresolved problems, not to mention a complete lack of comprehension of sexuality. Do us all a favor; stay at home with your self-help books.
000: Actual value of total "beast" concept convolved with intelligence
No. I don't. There is absolutely no reason or pressure for me to do such a thing. And any potential assailant had best realize it before the decision is made to invade my premises or assault my family. It is not in the least any concern of mine what motivated such a person. It is not my responsibility to "solve their problems" at that point. They've gone way too far. What I'm going to do at this juncture is eliminate their problems, as well as the problems they pose for everyone else. I take a risk here; but no one else does. I can live with that.
From your message, I take it that you have a mindset that says that risk to your family is acceptable if the person who brings the risk to you isn't "ok." Additionally, you think that letting this person go off and assault others is ok, also. That does not in any way resemble my position on these matters.
I take it as a matter of personal responsibility: I know this person is a threat to people and society; it is my obligation to do something about it, because (a) it is the right thing to do, and (b), because I am able to do so, and (c), because I know for a fact that society won't adequately deal with the problem if I leave it to them, and (d) because if I don't deal with it -- and this is really important, you should pay attention -- then it is my responsibility when this moron enters your home and hurts your family, and I can't live with that. No one who attacks my family is likely to survive in any condition where they would ever be able to attack your family. Even if I let them live. Even if it would have been ok with you. No matter if you can understand the issues or not. I understand them; that's the key here. Once you understand that, you understand why you shouldn't ever screw with me or mine.
See, you make assumptions, you're going to screw up your argument. Where did I say I was going to shoot anyone? You're assuming I require, or use, a firearm to deal with invaders of my home. I don't. My physical abilities are almost certain to be sufficient, and are of course much, much safer to use than a gun -- only the person I'm after is at risk. Guns shoot through walls, and there is little control over the amount of damage you do. With hand to hand, there's always plenty of time for someone to say "It's (whoever it is)" and avoid having their neck, and possibly other optional parts, broken.
There's more. By the content of your message, you're telling me that you expect kids to sneak partners by parents. This kind of issue arises from a severe lack of parenting skills. Perhaps the parent(s) is/are afraid they'll discover sex, and/or drugs, and/or rock and roll. In that case, the parent(s), and the kid(s), will have problems, sure enough. It is perfectly fair that the parent(s) have to deal with these problems, since they caused them. But they're not problems for me and mine -- if my kids want to bring a partner in, they'll let me know, and there won't be any misunderstandings. They are well aware that I won't object. They are also well aware that it is my home - not theirs - and they are 100% obligated to keep me informed. Let me emphasize that: It's not a courtesy, it's an obligation. And they know it.
First of all, I have my own checks and balances, and they are far more conservative than any US court would ever think of applying. I described them in the grandparent; if you had read them and understood what you were reading, you wouldn't have your foot so deep in your mouth right now.
Secondly, the courts operate on a presumption of guilt. Why do you think they jail people before the "trial"? The fact is, if they decide you might have done something, you're screwed, starting right then. There is, of course, a chance you'll be able to come out with some remaining fragments of your life intact, assuming you have the funds for the required level of legal defense and a modicum of luck, but even if you do, you've probably already lost your job, the income from your job, the ability to get a new job, been ostracized by large chunks of society, etc. The US legal system's most profound lie is "innocent until proven guilty." The fact is that you are "guilty until proven innocent, and punished either way." That's the way it works. No way around it. Checks? You bet. Write them to the lawyers and bail-bonds-persons. Balances? You bet - your future is balanced on a knife edge. The courts are far more broken than any citizen's direct response to a crime being comitted against them right at that point in time by a known assailant.
The bottom line, though, is: Don't sneak into my home, don't assault my family, and you have nothing to worry about. Try it, and your next of kin will be the ones doing the worrying. Don't like it? Frankly, I don't care. Liberal hand-wringing for the "rights" of home invaders only serves as a source of amusment to me. You surrender all your rights if you choose to cross my threshold without my permission. It is a matter of personal responsibility -- something liberals are mightily confused about. My family, however, isn't. Every one of them is a martial artist, every one of them understands responsibility to their very core. And every one of them could tear your average home invader into little bloody fragments without breaking a sweat. I love my kids. :)