Software is unique in that it is protected by both copyright and patents, other industries have one or the other and that is sufficient for them.
This really seems to me to be the core of what's wrong with US (and soon, possibly EU, according to the article) IP law.
If it is a technical invention - a new technology - then you file a patent. That way you can profit from your innovation.
If it is something creative - something that anybody could have done, but you did it in your particular way and thus created something unique - then you are protected by copyright and thus are legally identified as the creative source, so you can be credited for your creativity.
Software falls between the cracks of the law, and so is protected by both. You have a category of products that you can't mimic without paying for it and that you can't replicate period. As far as I can see, this is only an issue because that which is protected by copyright - information - is now completely free to reproduce thanks to technology.
So, the whole problem boils down to exactly the same thing as music and DRM. It's just that the litigiousness of the US has brought it rapidly to a financial and legal head there. The only way it can be resolved while maintaining society's appetite for innovation is to come up with a new way of classifying the rights of the originator of information - be it technical or creative.
I am not the person to come up with that solution, but I do wish people would stop banging on about the brush-fire conflicts and start trying to figure out a solution to the cause of the problem.
I expect better than this from the Beeb (From TFA):
Moore's Law, that says the number of transistors on a chip will double every couple of years...
How about we go with the complexity of integrated circuits, with respect to minimum component cost, doubles every 24 months.
Bit of a difference. Doesn't have a huge impact on the story, but come on - anyone who reports on tech issues should at least have a better grasp of the basics than your average Digg-er.
lack of a standardized application environment for third parties to write to
For Linux? Why? If that's all manufacturers are worried about, can't they bolt on an evironment that isn't so Open? It may be against the FOSS movement, but I can't see manufacturers being particularly cut up about that.
You may now flame me for not getting it.
I'm not saying they're evil. Yet. I just worry that, at some point, they might go evil. Hopefully the hippy culture is unassailably endemic among its key employees, but the thought of a company so huge, so pervading and expanding so rapidly deciding to exhibit crappy business practices and policies worries me. That's all.
Okay, since a little aneamic, wry humour has been poorly received as straight opinion, I'll spell it out:
1. When I used the word "evil", I was referring to the oft-quoted (supposed) business acumen of Google: Don't Be Evil - not stating an opinion about their current business practices, but pointing out that this is something they should avoid in order to maintain said acumen.
2. Nor was I stating that Google are a) Monopolistic or b) Evil. In fact, I was asking the question, purely out of hypothetical interest, "will they automatically become evil if they become a massive monopoly?". This was an observation on the fact that monopolies tend to exhibit monopolistic practices, which most consider to be "evil" in terms of a competitive market.
3. If there were six large corporations dominating a market then YES, I would expect them to be monopolists in their business practices - that does not mean they are monopolies since (as I assume you were trying to cleverly point out) none of them would have an overwhelming market majority. Monoply is a noun. Monopolistic is an adjective which does not necessarily refer to a monopoly.
It tends to be the nature of all businesses to attempt to gain and hold as much market share as possible, which is - virtually by definition - monopolistic practice. They become a monopoly when their practices are sufficiently successful.
4. Should Google be considered a monopoly, I would only expect a suit to be slapped on them should they exhibit "evil" monopolistic behaviour ie using their market advantage to unscruplously cripple competition by directly modifying the landscape of the market, rather than best meeting the market's demands. Assuming they don't undertake such practices I can see no basis for such a suit, which is what I'm hoping will be the case.
Jeez, is there anything these guys won't get there fingers in? Don't get me wrong, I like what they've done so far, but is it possible for a company to expand beyond a certain critical mass and still stick to the operating principle "Don't Be Evil"?
I just hope the Geegees aren't going to turn nasty and suddenly warrant a big anti-monopoly order or somesuch. I just couldn't take the smug look on Bill's face...
This is widely known - in fact it's the whole basis of Natural Selection. However, there's a more fundamental thing to consider.
There are numerous examples of technological advances (usually mechanical or chemical, since that's the focus of TFA and of nature-mimicry) which could never have been acheived through natural selection. Quite apart from their being impractical in biological circumstances the incremental, intermediary stages in the evolution of such developments would be so impractical as to render the finished "product" impossible through natural selection.
You know where this is going. The wheel.
It's thought through a lot by school-kids - why (except for micro-biological exceptions) do biological equivalents not exist in nature? The average/.er can come up with some decent reasons, no doubt.
This is not to detract from the study of nature and the possible applications of mimicking it, but I'm often surprised at how this kind of study is viewed as an "impressive insight" or whatever. Nature has been the starting point for most inventive inspirations since time began, and returning to those principles does not warrant praise.
Necessity is the mother of invention, but Nature is its wetnurse.
Actually, I've already started such a company and patented the notion. I'm just waiting until they've had a few big payouts before I pursue legal action for infringement.
To be honest, if they just wrote a bit of code to recognise and block pictures showing the usual configuration of buttons & bars people tend to have in WoW, they'd clean up half the images in one go...
Alternatively, pink-pigtails recognition software would work equally well.
If I really really want a steady crapflood of WoW Wedding shots, I'll tick the "bore me senseless" option. You can put what you like on Flickr, just don't assume anyone else gives a damn. Delisting is a good thing for people who want to use the site as it was intended.
If you're really that obsessed with having people look at your uninteresting life, why not go and get one. Then take pictures of it. Sheesh.
TFA suggests that these phone designs are concepts that may be workable by 2015.
2015? As in, nearly ten years from now? Nobody seriously expects phones to be recognisably unique devices by then, do they? It's nigh-on impossible to buy a mobile phone these days that does not incorporate, to a significant degree, functions for which there are already devices available.
It's widely accepted in the industry that within 10 years', when cameras, mp3 players and all sorts of other gadgets are sufficiently advanced and shrunk, everyone will be toting Multi-Function-Devices such that calling it a "phone" would be like calling a laptop an "electronic typewriter".
Now, those of us who are of a practical or ludditish bent will say that we prefer our devices to be discrete (as in separate) so that we don't have to upgrade everything at once and can stick with what we like. Personally, I'd like to see a move towards modular technology with standard interfaces - you buy your basic model, and detach/reattach parts as they become more advance and cheaper, so you swap out your 2M camera module for a 10M SLR, or a gaming processor unit, or whatever. However, it's not likely to happen as it means phone manufacturers have a smaller turnover, smaller businesses can get a better foothold, and service providers can't tie you into replacement schemes with the contract.
Due to lazy moderation and posting, there now appears to be no point in posting anything as a reply, so I'll ask again what I think is a pertinent question as a main post:
How would this violate US Export Licences???
Fine, don't export chips overseas without knowing who you're selling to, but documentation? For driver developers no less?? When Hifn themselves are trying to say that this information is open and free???
This is the key point of Theo's argument, surely: that Hifn are not at all obliged to demand this information, and therefore are going against the principles of open access/source by demanding it. Can someone please explain what I'm missing here.
Please see previous post - I really don't see how this is supposed to be a violation of export licences! Export is sale overseas (please don't attack, pedants; I'm generalising). This is information which, according to HIFN, is "open" ie freely obtainable. We're not talking about the chips here, are we? Just the information about them.
I'll be the first to admit I may be missing something obvious, but would genuinely appreciate being told what it is. In affable tones, if it's not too much to ask.
Registration at our extranet is required along with an email address
that can be confirmed. We cannot support anonymous FTP or http
downloads. The reason for this is that we are required by the
conditions of our US export licenses to know who and where our customers
are. If anyone objects to registration then we could not sell them
chips anyway so it does not seem an unreasonable restriction to us.
Implication: they are collecting the data in case they're asked to provide it. To the US Govt. Yeah, that's pretty hissy-worthy when you're trying to claim that you're opening up access. I have little doubt that registration will lead to some non-disclosure agreement or other, though I'm not prepared to try it myself.
Incidentally, how does the supplying information without charging for it constitute "export"? And by comparison, if I want to download a manual for something I bought second-hand, why can't I? Just a thought.
Okay, we all know what a Police State is, but I've only ever heard one sensible sounding description of how to recognise one in the making:
When the state, in the interest of "National security", monitors the movement and activities of citizens on an individual basis irrespetive of their criminal status, all are effectively being treated with suspicion until proven innocent. This is how a police state begins.
Anyway, how exactly is this system expected to collate info ONLY on US citizens? Obviously, it won't.
The bill is actually the "COPE Act" (at least read the posting, if not TFA). The Net Neutrality thing was a proposed amendment to the bill, put forward in the light of massive corporate lobbying. It was the amendment that was voted against.
I agree fully with your points about breaking the ingrained habits and associations - that's really what this clinic is about. You're right that I'm just pissed off at the buzzword.
However, people have a massive misconception of what Heroin addiction is about. People aren't necessarily addicted to it because it "feels good" or because of homeostasis, though that's a part of it and was thought to be all the chemical did until a couple of years ago.
This perception was overturned when a study showed that heroin doesn't affect the balance of "pleasure" chemicals, but the balance of "desire" chemicals. The second they are exposed, addicts desparately want another fix because their brains have been chemically altered to want more - not simply because they simply like it. That's why, even with the strongest will in the world, a single small dose can hook you instantly.
For that reason, I disagree about which is harder to overcome. True, many chemical addictions - nicotine being a prime example - are often easier to overcome than the associated habits and lifestyle, though it's hard to separate the two. When not receiving a fix is fatal though, you're talking about chemical dependency on a whole different level.
Slashdot Mirror
This really seems to me to be the core of what's wrong with US (and soon, possibly EU, according to the article) IP law.
If it is a technical invention - a new technology - then you file a patent. That way you can profit from your innovation.
If it is something creative - something that anybody could have done, but you did it in your particular way and thus created something unique - then you are protected by copyright and thus are legally identified as the creative source, so you can be credited for your creativity.
Software falls between the cracks of the law, and so is protected by both. You have a category of products that you can't mimic without paying for it and that you can't replicate period. As far as I can see, this is only an issue because that which is protected by copyright - information - is now completely free to reproduce thanks to technology.
So, the whole problem boils down to exactly the same thing as music and DRM. It's just that the litigiousness of the US has brought it rapidly to a financial and legal head there. The only way it can be resolved while maintaining society's appetite for innovation is to come up with a new way of classifying the rights of the originator of information - be it technical or creative.
I am not the person to come up with that solution, but I do wish people would stop banging on about the brush-fire conflicts and start trying to figure out a solution to the cause of the problem.
How about we go with the complexity of integrated circuits, with respect to minimum component cost, doubles every 24 months.
Bit of a difference. Doesn't have a huge impact on the story, but come on - anyone who reports on tech issues should at least have a better grasp of the basics than your average Digg-er.
For Linux? Why? If that's all manufacturers are worried about, can't they bolt on an evironment that isn't so Open? It may be against the FOSS movement, but I can't see manufacturers being particularly cut up about that. You may now flame me for not getting it.
So, you get some great shots of the view as you plummet off the top of a cliff or into a river. Fab.
(May not make sense to non-UK residents)
Well, a change is as good as a rest!
I'm not saying they're evil. Yet. I just worry that, at some point, they might go evil. Hopefully the hippy culture is unassailably endemic among its key employees, but the thought of a company so huge, so pervading and expanding so rapidly deciding to exhibit crappy business practices and policies worries me. That's all.
Okay, since a little aneamic, wry humour has been poorly received as straight opinion, I'll spell it out:
1. When I used the word "evil", I was referring to the oft-quoted (supposed) business acumen of Google: Don't Be Evil - not stating an opinion about their current business practices, but pointing out that this is something they should avoid in order to maintain said acumen.
2. Nor was I stating that Google are a) Monopolistic or b) Evil. In fact, I was asking the question, purely out of hypothetical interest, "will they automatically become evil if they become a massive monopoly?". This was an observation on the fact that monopolies tend to exhibit monopolistic practices, which most consider to be "evil" in terms of a competitive market.
3. If there were six large corporations dominating a market then YES, I would expect them to be monopolists in their business practices - that does not mean they are monopolies since (as I assume you were trying to cleverly point out) none of them would have an overwhelming market majority. Monoply is a noun. Monopolistic is an adjective which does not necessarily refer to a monopoly.
It tends to be the nature of all businesses to attempt to gain and hold as much market share as possible, which is - virtually by definition - monopolistic practice. They become a monopoly when their practices are sufficiently successful.
4. Should Google be considered a monopoly, I would only expect a suit to be slapped on them should they exhibit "evil" monopolistic behaviour ie using their market advantage to unscruplously cripple competition by directly modifying the landscape of the market, rather than best meeting the market's demands. Assuming they don't undertake such practices I can see no basis for such a suit, which is what I'm hoping will be the case.
Well, I may be a mealy-mouthed lefty, but I find it hard to distinguish the definitions...
*ducks*
I for one welcome my...
Jeez, is there anything these guys won't get there fingers in? Don't get me wrong, I like what they've done so far, but is it possible for a company to expand beyond a certain critical mass and still stick to the operating principle "Don't Be Evil"?
I just hope the Geegees aren't going to turn nasty and suddenly warrant a big anti-monopoly order or somesuch. I just couldn't take the smug look on Bill's face...
*gah*
There are numerous examples of technological advances (usually mechanical or chemical, since that's the focus of TFA and of nature-mimicry) which could never have been acheived through natural selection. Quite apart from their being impractical in biological circumstances the incremental, intermediary stages in the evolution of such developments would be so impractical as to render the finished "product" impossible through natural selection.
You know where this is going. The wheel.
It's thought through a lot by school-kids - why (except for micro-biological exceptions) do biological equivalents not exist in nature? The average /.er can come up with some decent reasons, no doubt.
This is not to detract from the study of nature and the possible applications of mimicking it, but I'm often surprised at how this kind of study is viewed as an "impressive insight" or whatever. Nature has been the starting point for most inventive inspirations since time began, and returning to those principles does not warrant praise.
Necessity is the mother of invention, but Nature is its wetnurse.
Actually, I've already started such a company and patented the notion. I'm just waiting until they've had a few big payouts before I pursue legal action for infringement.
Right, I'm sick of this. The one article where I deserve a mention and they leave me out. Guess I just don't matter.
No, they've taken screenshots of it. Try and keep up...
To be honest, if they just wrote a bit of code to recognise and block pictures showing the usual configuration of buttons & bars people tend to have in WoW, they'd clean up half the images in one go...
Alternatively, pink-pigtails recognition software would work equally well.
If you're really that obsessed with having people look at your uninteresting life, why not go and get one. Then take pictures of it. Sheesh.
2015? As in, nearly ten years from now? Nobody seriously expects phones to be recognisably unique devices by then, do they? It's nigh-on impossible to buy a mobile phone these days that does not incorporate, to a significant degree, functions for which there are already devices available.
It's widely accepted in the industry that within 10 years', when cameras, mp3 players and all sorts of other gadgets are sufficiently advanced and shrunk, everyone will be toting Multi-Function-Devices such that calling it a "phone" would be like calling a laptop an "electronic typewriter".
Now, those of us who are of a practical or ludditish bent will say that we prefer our devices to be discrete (as in separate) so that we don't have to upgrade everything at once and can stick with what we like. Personally, I'd like to see a move towards modular technology with standard interfaces - you buy your basic model, and detach/reattach parts as they become more advance and cheaper, so you swap out your 2M camera module for a 10M SLR, or a gaming processor unit, or whatever. However, it's not likely to happen as it means phone manufacturers have a smaller turnover, smaller businesses can get a better foothold, and service providers can't tie you into replacement schemes with the contract.
Still, a guy can dream.
How would this violate US Export Licences???
Fine, don't export chips overseas without knowing who you're selling to, but documentation? For driver developers no less?? When Hifn themselves are trying to say that this information is open and free???
This is the key point of Theo's argument, surely: that Hifn are not at all obliged to demand this information, and therefore are going against the principles of open access/source by demanding it. Can someone please explain what I'm missing here.
I'll be the first to admit I may be missing something obvious, but would genuinely appreciate being told what it is. In affable tones, if it's not too much to ask.
Implication: they are collecting the data in case they're asked to provide it. To the US Govt. Yeah, that's pretty hissy-worthy when you're trying to claim that you're opening up access. I have little doubt that registration will lead to some non-disclosure agreement or other, though I'm not prepared to try it myself.
Incidentally, how does the supplying information without charging for it constitute "export"? And by comparison, if I want to download a manual for something I bought second-hand, why can't I? Just a thought.
When the state, in the interest of "National security", monitors the movement and activities of citizens on an individual basis irrespetive of their criminal status, all are effectively being treated with suspicion until proven innocent. This is how a police state begins.
Anyway, how exactly is this system expected to collate info ONLY on US citizens? Obviously, it won't.
The bill is actually the "COPE Act" (at least read the posting, if not TFA). The Net Neutrality thing was a proposed amendment to the bill, put forward in the light of massive corporate lobbying. It was the amendment that was voted against.
However, people have a massive misconception of what Heroin addiction is about. People aren't necessarily addicted to it because it "feels good" or because of homeostasis, though that's a part of it and was thought to be all the chemical did until a couple of years ago.
This perception was overturned when a study showed that heroin doesn't affect the balance of "pleasure" chemicals, but the balance of "desire" chemicals. The second they are exposed, addicts desparately want another fix because their brains have been chemically altered to want more - not simply because they simply like it. That's why, even with the strongest will in the world, a single small dose can hook you instantly.
For that reason, I disagree about which is harder to overcome. True, many chemical addictions - nicotine being a prime example - are often easier to overcome than the associated habits and lifestyle, though it's hard to separate the two. When not receiving a fix is fatal though, you're talking about chemical dependency on a whole different level.
Dammit. I have to stop clicking \. posted links when I'm at work...
It's the ears - they really chafe me. I wish she'd just have an affair like my other wives.