Uhm, that sounds like a flawed argument. Because this discussion touches on the work of computer scientists as well. Can't they have a say when their work is being affected by derailed legislation?
It is like saying to environmental activists: sorry but you have no degree in nuclear physics, so please shut up.
PS: What I do agree on, is that slashdot seems to endlessly keep its focus on the validity of patents, instead of looking for solutions, and finding a road to get to that solution. But that would require social engineering, which is too boring, I guess.
Of course something is going to happen to facebook. They have hijacked the open internet. They have effectively created an "internet inside the internet". It is not like governments are going to stand by and do nothing about it.
Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.
Sure. But people need to be protected against themselves, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. To understand this, consider the following.
If there was a supermarket that sold bread at $0.01, but you only could get one if you punched yourself in the face and put the video on youtube, then you can bet that there would be people that would do that.
Then consider that these supermarkets gain so many clients that "regular" supermarkets become a niche, increasing the price of "normal" bread.
The analogy stops here, but in the case of social media we could take it a step further: imagine that people who punch themselves for a loaf of bread are not allowed to talk to people who don't, or communication is obstructed in some way. Now certainly we can say that something is wrong, perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the level of society.
The point is that communication is so important that we don't want it to be taken hostage by companies that effectively turn people into "information-prostitutes".
When I send a text-message to a bunch of friends using my mobile phone via my telco, the telco is certainly not allowed to inspect the contents of the message, let alone to share it directly or indirectly with 3rd parties, such as advertisers.
Now in many ways, facebook is similar to a telco. On facebook I'm also sending messages to other people, only usually these messages are sent to more than one person, but the group of people is still restricted (to my friends).I think we may rightfully ask why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people.
In fact, I think there should be a law that states that any data send through a communications facilitator (telco or social media company or otherwise) that is directed to a RESTRICTED group of people, should be treated as confidential.
Love the joke at 7:30: they're blocking Ubuntu packages that phone home, since they cannot afford to let work-data leave company premises... however, they CAN use Google Drive.
The first step is to limit the way companies like facebook may use our data in the same way telecom providers are disallowed from listening to our telephone calls. I think that can be done without any new law whatsoever.
We should just put a big "telecom" stamp on facebook, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this will be referred to as the era in which developers became slaves and lawyers became their masters.
They all copied the code from Oracle. They'd better be prepared for a huge fine or a sales ban.
Well, I care about contrast. Where are all the HDR displays?
Uhm, that sounds like a flawed argument. Because this discussion touches on the work of computer scientists as well. Can't they have a say when their work is being affected by derailed legislation?
It is like saying to environmental activists: sorry but you have no degree in nuclear physics, so please shut up.
PS: What I do agree on, is that slashdot seems to endlessly keep its focus on the validity of patents, instead of looking for solutions, and finding a road to get to that solution. But that would require social engineering, which is too boring, I guess.
And they would patent cars with rounded corners.
And Apple doesn't copy anything. Just watch this video, starting at 4:30 if you're in a hurry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
And this wikipedia page shows that Samsung used the word "Pad" way before Apple,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad
Notice the lowercase "i" used in GRiDPad. (What word do you get if you only omit the letters "G", "R", and "D")?
Now we only need a project that converts HTML5 to something that can be rendered uniformly on all major browsers.
Can slashdot please hire this guy?
Of course something is going to happen to facebook. They have hijacked the open internet. They have effectively created an "internet inside the internet".
It is not like governments are going to stand by and do nothing about it.
A sum of numbers that are decreasing may still be infinite.
Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.
Sure. But people need to be protected against themselves, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. To understand this, consider the following.
If there was a supermarket that sold bread at $0.01, but you only could get one if you punched yourself in the face and put the video on youtube, then you can bet that there would be people that would do that.
Then consider that these supermarkets gain so many clients that "regular" supermarkets become a niche, increasing the price of "normal" bread.
The analogy stops here, but in the case of social media we could take it a step further: imagine that people who punch themselves for a loaf of bread are not allowed to talk to people who don't, or communication is obstructed in some way. Now certainly we can say that something is wrong, perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the level of society.
The point is that communication is so important that we don't want it to be taken hostage by companies that effectively turn people into "information-prostitutes".
When I send a text-message to a bunch of friends using my mobile phone via my telco, the telco is certainly not allowed to inspect the contents of the message, let alone to share it directly or indirectly with 3rd parties, such as advertisers.
Now in many ways, facebook is similar to a telco. On facebook I'm also sending messages to other people, only usually these messages are sent to more than one person, but the group of people is still restricted (to my friends).I think we may rightfully ask why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people.
In fact, I think there should be a law that states that any data send through a communications facilitator (telco or social media company or otherwise) that is directed to a RESTRICTED group of people, should be treated as confidential.
Yeah right. Those patents are, indirectly, the judge's source of income, or at least his raison d'etre.
It would be, at the minimum, moral suicide for him and his colleagues.
If your privacy is worth nothing, then indeed.
Steve Jobs of course, for inventing alternating current (to be copied later by Tesla).
Doesn't matter. They have the patent. That's all that counts.
So, expect any future cancer cures to either be blocked from the market, or served with craploads of ads.
They're just lucky nobody patented stuff like that.
Love the joke at 7:30: they're blocking Ubuntu packages that phone home, since they cannot afford to let work-data leave company premises... however, they CAN use Google Drive.
Time to build starship: 20 years.
Time to reach nearest star: 10,000 years (*)
Based on these numbers, wouldn't it be better to let technology progress a little bit further?
(*) IANAA, not an astronomer
A limited nuclear exchange on US soil would be less expensive.
Especially if that exchange would happen in the vicinity of, say, the patent office.
The whole patent system is backwards. It was cooked up with too little thought, and now WE have to prove that it is broken.
These solutions are far too radical.
The first step is to limit the way companies like facebook may use our data in the same way telecom providers are disallowed from listening to our telephone calls. I think that can be done without any new law whatsoever.
We should just put a big "telecom" stamp on facebook, that's all.
Are they sure that it wasn't Ireland that was moving instead?
Don't worry. Apple will invent the exact same light bulb next year.
Oh, and I thought everybody was working in the legal department.