"Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong. And while I do not support illegal filesharing, I do have to agree with earlier posters that the starving artists won't see a dime of this settlement. In fact, I'd be suprised if any artists, even the 'big names', get some of the settlement. The artist's contract only gets them money under certain conditions- and I'll bet that 'settlements from lawsuits' are not one of those conditions. No, this is a victory for the RIAA, but not particularly helpful to anyone else.
I personally have met someone who was addicted to World of Warcraft- he stopped going to classes to play, would fall asleep at his chair while his characted rested, and unless he's changed since I graduated, has probably flunked out of college by this point.
However, for all that, I don't think that gaming addiction is all that common- compared to alcholism or compulsive gambling the number of gaming 'addicts' are trivial. Also, gaming is less physically harmful than alcohol or drugs, and much cheaper to indulge in than compulsive gambling.
I suspect that the same people who are susceptible to compulsive gambling are also the compulsive gamers, so research on the larger, more important issue (compulsive gambling) might also help compulsive gamers.
No, no- step 8 is "Retire with $10 million in the bank." What, you think CEOs are legally accountable for their company's actions? That's the worst part about this trial- Darl McBride will walk away from it rich, and SCO- the company he should have been working for- will be pounded into bankruptcy.
This is the strategy of SCO:
Hi, I'm Darl! I get paid $300,000 dollars each year the lawsuit continues- without doing any work other than a couple press conferences!
Basically, the people who run SCO get paid more the longer the litigation continues. It doesn't matter to them whether they win or lose- the longer the lawsuit continues the more
For those of us (like me) who aren't lawyers, an Amicus curae is a "friend of the court". In other words, he testifies to the court about what he knows about an issue. Apparently the courts have decided that he doesn't know Jack.
I'll admit that like most people here on/., I find that the comments people make are more interesting than the articles themselves. However, do we need the recent proliferation in Slashback articles? Usually the/backs are for discussions that have already been disscussed to death. Someone once described/backs as 'the dupe that isn't a dupe'. I feel that he's right.
Has anyone else noticed that the quote in the summary isn't actually in the article linked to? Do a serach for 'tipping point' and you'll find that it's not in there. The article the summary steals from sounds more interesting, the article linked to is just hype about Spore.
If Infinium Labs can actually produce a good product that makes them money, more power to them. If it's good enough (and reasonably priced) I might even buy it. Of course, those are some very big ifs for a company that hasn't produced anything yet but hot air.
Like the previous reply mentioned, there are two types of IP infringement in the software world. (Most types of IP only are covered by copyright or by patents, software is unique in that it is covered by both). The first is Copyright infringement- this is when someone else takes your code and uses it as their own. This is morally equivilent to taking someone else's book, writing your name over theirs on the cover, and selling it as your own. This is obviously illegal and wrong.
The second type of infringement is patent infringement. This is a much trickier type of IP infringement, because unlike copyright infringement, you don't need to know how the patented software works to violate it. For instance, let's say that I wrote a program that reads and displays flash (.swf) files. I am now probably in violation of Macromedia's patents, even though I don't know exactly how Macromedia's code works or is written. Or let's say that I make a website where you can log in with stored credit card information and press a button to order things. I may not realize it, but I'm violating Amazon's famous one-click patent. You don't have to copy someone else's ideas to be guilty of patent infringement, even if the results are similar.
Basically, in the world of software, people can unknowingly violate patents (which happens all the time), but they can't unknowingly violate copyright. Also, it's a lot easier to fight patent claims that copyright claims, since copyright violations are usually obvious. If you are talking about software IP, it's important to make the distinction between the two.
Even if the free programs DO violate patents or copyrights, if they are published anonymously, who's to stop them?
By that logic there you can't sue filesharers for passing around mp3s. Obviously, you can, and people do. More importantly, though, most of us want to be able to use and create free software legally, and we want to be able to take credit for our own work. Not being able to do these things is a HUGE deal.
What you may have missed is that SCO's parent company released a lot of source code under the GPL- and once released they can't 'unrelease it' later. As a result it was perfectly legal to use a lot of those files in Linux. Besides, don't you think that SCO would have shown this source code to the Judge if they had a case at all?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Likewise, ignorance of intellectual property is no excuse for violating its protections. If you are doing truly innovative work, then you are probably, or should be, aware of prior art.
1. Actually, Ignorance of the law- especially non-obvious laws- is usually a great excuse for breaking it. It won't let you avoid punishment, but it usually gets you a lighter sentence. Some intellectual property, like copyright infringement, requires knowledge of the work you are infringing. So ignorance does let you get away with what might otherwise be IP violations.
2. If you are doing truly innovative work, shouldn't that be the hardest to find prior art?
I suspect that the reason we disagree on this issue is that we are in different fields. I have no real problem with patents in general, I just have problems with patents on software. The problem we are disscussing- independent invention- occurs all of the time in software. You seem to treat it like it's not a big deal in your field, so maybe it isn't. Also, software is already protected by copyright (which does everything I want it to do), unlike lightbulbs, which are only protected by patents. As a result you need patents to protect your ideas, but I don't need them to protect mine. I'm fine with letting you have patents in your world- but I hope you understand that what is a blessing to most people in your field is a curse to most people in mine.
Perhaps you didn't notice the nice bold Independently that I put in my comment there. Perhaps you deliberately ignored it. Either way, I don't feel that I have a right to profit from any work other than my own. If they copied my design, then they are profiting off my work, and I probably deserve a share of the profits. If they independently came up with something similar, they are not profiting off my efforts, and I don't deserve any of their money.
Independent invention occurs all the time. I remember 'inventing' the mergesort algorithm in one of my first C++ classes as a logical modification of quicksort. Of course, it was discovered and used by people long before I found it, but I never knew that until later. Now suppose that mergesort had been patented. Should someone be allowed to prevent me from using something I invented just because they thought of it first? It's not like I was aware that their algorithm even existed.
To use our original analogy: Suppose you and I each invented lightbulbs that were practically identical- yours may be tube shaped and mine bulb shaped, but they are similar enough that you infringe my patent for "a device that illuminates by running a current through a resisting material in a sealed glass container." Now let's say that I make it to the patent office a 5 years before you do, but never do anything with my patent (so you've never heard of me). Now suppose that you manage to find someone willing to make your lightbulbs, and start selling them for hefty profits. I sue as soon as I notice what you're doing. Do I deserve any of your profits because I invented it first?
Another example: I come up with a nifty new type of crayon that has heat-sensitive color. I get sued by Crayola for violating some patent I never heard of (Crayola has thousands of crayon-related patents). I am no longer allowed to sell these crayons (even though Crayola isn't making them either).
What you seem to believe is that whenever someone comes up with an idea, no one else should be allowed to come up with the same idea later- or at least, not be able to do anything with it. You may be ignorant of how easy it is to unintentionally duplicate something someone else has done- especially in software, but it occurs all the time in other industries as well. As for myself, I've designed some very interesting algorithms, and have considered patenting some of them- even though they would belong to my company, I'd still get my name on them. Even if the patents go through, however, I doubt that my work is truely the first of its kind- I'm sure other people have done similar things before, even if I've never heard of them.
If only the people who have the means to build up huge patent libraries have the right to Intellectual Property protection, the little guy with new ideas will perpetually be screwed.
Yeah, pretty much. If someone else invented the lightbulb independently of my work, why should I get to make money off their efforts? To put it from the other perspective: So if you invented the lightbulb, but someone else had patented glowing glass bulbs, should he be able to prevent you from selling your idea to others? If you invented it, why shouldn't you get the benefits for your hard work and insight?
The worst thing that I see about companies like this is that they don't actually produce anything with their ideas. They wait until someone else intelligent has one of their ideas and actually does something with them. They make money off of someone else's business without contributing anything to help them in the first place.
Something tells me that the Washington State Lottery will still get to promote itself online... apparently they also were even going to sell lottery tickets online but I can't find evidence of them still doing it.
Ah, but if Little Timmy orders it online, he's doing it through Mommy's Credit Card- which means that either A. Mommy gave her permission (in which case she's buying the game, and it's okay) or B. Little Timmy is commiting fraud, and it's Little Timmy who is breaking laws, not the seller. It would be the same as if Little Timmy stole beer from the department store- the store isn't breaking laws, Timmy is.
Above is an example of a classic troll tactic. Note that it does not even refer to the issue at hand- it's a general comment designed to get heated reactions in almost any disscussion. Of course, in this context it is completely ridiculous- We wouldn't expect to see a U.S. President try for U.N. sanctions against an American company. I doubt he even read the summary.
When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? If Google walks away from China, the Chinese don't benefit- all that means that they need to use Bandu or Yahoo! search engines (which aren't open about the censorship like Google is, and help the government track and jail people). If I was Chinese I'd rather have Google.cn than use something I know is tracking all my seraches and giving the information to the Chinese Government.
Well, is it better to sell an encyclopedia that has no entry for "Holocaust" or sell no encyclopedias at all? (I'm assuming that the encyclopedia doesn't say it never happened, just doesn't mention it) Also, you have you considered that no encyclopedia is complete, and all of them suffer through edits and changes (yes, this especially includes wikipedia). Basically, if you don't sell the encyclopedias, you're useless to the Iranians. If you sell crippled encyclopedias (that mention the censoring) some people might wonder "I wonder what my government has to hide?", and others will still benefit from the rest of the information contained in the encyclopedias. So what I'm asking you is this: would you rather have information you know is incomplete or no information at all?
As far as I can tell Google continued its "Do no evil" policy in China. They didn't take anything away from Chinese users- they merely offered a new Chinese service that openly filters results. How many Chinese search engines mention that they filter results? When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? Google isn't hurting the Chinese- (Unlike Yahoo!, which gives the Chinese government personal data) it just can't help them much.
The government already has your SSN, your mother's maiden name, and just about every piece of information someone would need to impersonate you. The only thing you have standing bewtween you and identity theft is the loyalty and competence of government employees.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong. And while I do not support illegal filesharing, I do have to agree with earlier posters that the starving artists won't see a dime of this settlement. In fact, I'd be suprised if any artists, even the 'big names', get some of the settlement. The artist's contract only gets them money under certain conditions- and I'll bet that 'settlements from lawsuits' are not one of those conditions. No, this is a victory for the RIAA, but not particularly helpful to anyone else.
I personally have met someone who was addicted to World of Warcraft- he stopped going to classes to play, would fall asleep at his chair while his characted rested, and unless he's changed since I graduated, has probably flunked out of college by this point.
However, for all that, I don't think that gaming addiction is all that common- compared to alcholism or compulsive gambling the number of gaming 'addicts' are trivial. Also, gaming is less physically harmful than alcohol or drugs, and much cheaper to indulge in than compulsive gambling.
I suspect that the same people who are susceptible to compulsive gambling are also the compulsive gamers, so research on the larger, more important issue (compulsive gambling) might also help compulsive gamers.
No, no- step 8 is "Retire with $10 million in the bank." What, you think CEOs are legally accountable for their company's actions? That's the worst part about this trial- Darl McBride will walk away from it rich, and SCO- the company he should have been working for- will be pounded into bankruptcy.
This is the strategy of SCO:
Hi, I'm Darl! I get paid $300,000 dollars each year the lawsuit continues- without doing any work other than a couple press conferences!
Basically, the people who run SCO get paid more the longer the litigation continues. It doesn't matter to them whether they win or lose- the longer the lawsuit continues the more
For those of us (like me) who aren't lawyers, an Amicus curae is a "friend of the court". In other words, he testifies to the court about what he knows about an issue. Apparently the courts have decided that he doesn't know Jack.
I'll admit that like most people here on /., I find that the comments people make are more interesting than the articles themselves. However, do we need the recent proliferation in Slashback articles? Usually the /backs are for discussions that have already been disscussed to death. Someone once described /backs as 'the dupe that isn't a dupe'. I feel that he's right.
Has anyone else noticed that the quote in the summary isn't actually in the article linked to? Do a serach for 'tipping point' and you'll find that it's not in there. The article the summary steals from sounds more interesting, the article linked to is just hype about Spore.
Ah, but they could shield secure areas, making transporter beam-ins impossible.
Sadly, this post might get modded insightful...
If Infinium Labs can actually produce a good product that makes them money, more power to them. If it's good enough (and reasonably priced) I might even buy it. Of course, those are some very big ifs for a company that hasn't produced anything yet but hot air.
Like the previous reply mentioned, there are two types of IP infringement in the software world. (Most types of IP only are covered by copyright or by patents, software is unique in that it is covered by both). The first is Copyright infringement- this is when someone else takes your code and uses it as their own. This is morally equivilent to taking someone else's book, writing your name over theirs on the cover, and selling it as your own. This is obviously illegal and wrong.
The second type of infringement is patent infringement. This is a much trickier type of IP infringement, because unlike copyright infringement, you don't need to know how the patented software works to violate it. For instance, let's say that I wrote a program that reads and displays flash (.swf) files. I am now probably in violation of Macromedia's patents, even though I don't know exactly how Macromedia's code works or is written. Or let's say that I make a website where you can log in with stored credit card information and press a button to order things. I may not realize it, but I'm violating Amazon's famous one-click patent. You don't have to copy someone else's ideas to be guilty of patent infringement, even if the results are similar.
Basically, in the world of software, people can unknowingly violate patents (which happens all the time), but they can't unknowingly violate copyright. Also, it's a lot easier to fight patent claims that copyright claims, since copyright violations are usually obvious. If you are talking about software IP, it's important to make the distinction between the two.
Even if the free programs DO violate patents or copyrights, if they are published anonymously, who's to stop them?
By that logic there you can't sue filesharers for passing around mp3s. Obviously, you can, and people do. More importantly, though, most of us want to be able to use and create free software legally, and we want to be able to take credit for our own work. Not being able to do these things is a HUGE deal.
What you may have missed is that SCO's parent company released a lot of source code under the GPL- and once released they can't 'unrelease it' later. As a result it was perfectly legal to use a lot of those files in Linux. Besides, don't you think that SCO would have shown this source code to the Judge if they had a case at all?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Likewise, ignorance of intellectual property is no excuse for violating its protections. If you are doing truly innovative work, then you are probably, or should be, aware of prior art.
1. Actually, Ignorance of the law- especially non-obvious laws- is usually a great excuse for breaking it. It won't let you avoid punishment, but it usually gets you a lighter sentence. Some intellectual property, like copyright infringement, requires knowledge of the work you are infringing. So ignorance does let you get away with what might otherwise be IP violations.
2. If you are doing truly innovative work, shouldn't that be the hardest to find prior art?
I suspect that the reason we disagree on this issue is that we are in different fields. I have no real problem with patents in general, I just have problems with patents on software. The problem we are disscussing- independent invention- occurs all of the time in software. You seem to treat it like it's not a big deal in your field, so maybe it isn't. Also, software is already protected by copyright (which does everything I want it to do), unlike lightbulbs, which are only protected by patents. As a result you need patents to protect your ideas, but I don't need them to protect mine. I'm fine with letting you have patents in your world- but I hope you understand that what is a blessing to most people in your field is a curse to most people in mine.
Perhaps you didn't notice the nice bold Independently that I put in my comment there. Perhaps you deliberately ignored it. Either way, I don't feel that I have a right to profit from any work other than my own. If they copied my design, then they are profiting off my work, and I probably deserve a share of the profits. If they independently came up with something similar, they are not profiting off my efforts, and I don't deserve any of their money.
Independent invention occurs all the time. I remember 'inventing' the mergesort algorithm in one of my first C++ classes as a logical modification of quicksort. Of course, it was discovered and used by people long before I found it, but I never knew that until later. Now suppose that mergesort had been patented. Should someone be allowed to prevent me from using something I invented just because they thought of it first? It's not like I was aware that their algorithm even existed.
To use our original analogy: Suppose you and I each invented lightbulbs that were practically identical- yours may be tube shaped and mine bulb shaped, but they are similar enough that you infringe my patent for "a device that illuminates by running a current through a resisting material in a sealed glass container." Now let's say that I make it to the patent office a 5 years before you do, but never do anything with my patent (so you've never heard of me). Now suppose that you manage to find someone willing to make your lightbulbs, and start selling them for hefty profits. I sue as soon as I notice what you're doing. Do I deserve any of your profits because I invented it first?
Another example: I come up with a nifty new type of crayon that has heat-sensitive color. I get sued by Crayola for violating some patent I never heard of (Crayola has thousands of crayon-related patents). I am no longer allowed to sell these crayons (even though Crayola isn't making them either).
What you seem to believe is that whenever someone comes up with an idea, no one else should be allowed to come up with the same idea later- or at least, not be able to do anything with it. You may be ignorant of how easy it is to unintentionally duplicate something someone else has done- especially in software, but it occurs all the time in other industries as well. As for myself, I've designed some very interesting algorithms, and have considered patenting some of them- even though they would belong to my company, I'd still get my name on them. Even if the patents go through, however, I doubt that my work is truely the first of its kind- I'm sure other people have done similar things before, even if I've never heard of them.
If only the people who have the means to build up huge patent libraries have the right to Intellectual Property protection, the little guy with new ideas will perpetually be screwed.
Yeah, pretty much. If someone else invented the lightbulb independently of my work, why should I get to make money off their efforts? To put it from the other perspective: So if you invented the lightbulb, but someone else had patented glowing glass bulbs, should he be able to prevent you from selling your idea to others? If you invented it, why shouldn't you get the benefits for your hard work and insight?
The worst thing that I see about companies like this is that they don't actually produce anything with their ideas. They wait until someone else intelligent has one of their ideas and actually does something with them. They make money off of someone else's business without contributing anything to help them in the first place.
Something tells me that the Washington State Lottery will still get to promote itself online... apparently they also were even going to sell lottery tickets online but I can't find evidence of them still doing it.
Ah, but if Little Timmy orders it online, he's doing it through Mommy's Credit Card- which means that either A. Mommy gave her permission (in which case she's buying the game, and it's okay) or B. Little Timmy is commiting fraud, and it's Little Timmy who is breaking laws, not the seller. It would be the same as if Little Timmy stole beer from the department store- the store isn't breaking laws, Timmy is.
Above is an example of a classic troll tactic. Note that it does not even refer to the issue at hand- it's a general comment designed to get heated reactions in almost any disscussion. Of course, in this context it is completely ridiculous- We wouldn't expect to see a U.S. President try for U.N. sanctions against an American company. I doubt he even read the summary.
When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? If Google walks away from China, the Chinese don't benefit- all that means that they need to use Bandu or Yahoo! search engines (which aren't open about the censorship like Google is, and help the government track and jail people). If I was Chinese I'd rather have Google.cn than use something I know is tracking all my seraches and giving the information to the Chinese Government.
You're absolutely right- that makes my sig much better. Thanks!
Well, is it better to sell an encyclopedia that has no entry for "Holocaust" or sell no encyclopedias at all? (I'm assuming that the encyclopedia doesn't say it never happened, just doesn't mention it) Also, you have you considered that no encyclopedia is complete, and all of them suffer through edits and changes (yes, this especially includes wikipedia). Basically, if you don't sell the encyclopedias, you're useless to the Iranians. If you sell crippled encyclopedias (that mention the censoring) some people might wonder "I wonder what my government has to hide?", and others will still benefit from the rest of the information contained in the encyclopedias. So what I'm asking you is this: would you rather have information you know is incomplete or no information at all?
As far as I can tell Google continued its "Do no evil" policy in China. They didn't take anything away from Chinese users- they merely offered a new Chinese service that openly filters results. How many Chinese search engines mention that they filter results? When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? Google isn't hurting the Chinese- (Unlike Yahoo!, which gives the Chinese government personal data) it just can't help them much.
The government already has your SSN, your mother's maiden name, and just about every piece of information someone would need to impersonate you. The only thing you have standing bewtween you and identity theft is the loyalty and competence of government employees.