I'm sure the pirates will figure out some way to work around this [...] but if this kind of technology can prevail and advance, it will allow those of us legally using our own purchased goods to do so without worry, while punishing those who deserve it.
No one deserves to be punished just for sharing a music file.
How come no one has sued Microsoft for making xbox games unplayable on a playstation? Or Nintendo for not allowing gamecube games to work on a pc? It seems the concept is the same: I have a hardware platform (game console, ipod) and I have content that works on said content platform (games, itunes tracks).
There is a significant difference that, as a Slashdot user, you should already have recognized.
That is, there are legitimate technical reasons why you can't play a PS2 game on your Xbox. The two consoles use different processors, different graphics units, etc... it's like complaining that you can't run your gasoline engine on diesel fuel, or you can't fill your fountain pen up with mechanical pencil leads, or you can't play VHS tapes in your DVD player. In order to make PS2 games play on the Xbox or vice versa, one of the systems would have to be completely redesigned; no one who understands how the systems work would expect them to have the ability to play each other's games.
In the case of iPod and iTMS, however, there are no legitimate technical reasons for the lockout. Apple could very easily release the details of FairPlay and let other stores (e.g. Real) sell DRM'd music for the iPod. iTMS could very easily sell music in other formats so the tracks could be played on more than just an iPod. The only changes needed would be to the software and company policy, and those changes could be implemented in a matter of weeks, if not days. The only reason Apple hasn't done it is that they make money from tying their player to their own music store.
So basically you think all innovation should be done at the corporate level. Meaning that if a company with money hasn't come up with the idea then it isn't worth doing? Sorry I can't agree with you on this.
Huh. You come up with an idea that isn't in any of my posts, attack it, and then tell me you don't agree with it.
Look at a hypothetical future where real objects can be copied with a material printer. So does everyone in the world have a right to everything that exsists simple because it can be copied? Before you say yes at least reflect on what that would do to the world.
A right to everything that exists? Not necessarily.. there are legitimate reasons to keep everyone from having, say, nuclear weapons, or their neighbors' credit cards.
But for the most part, yes - a world where physical objects could be copied freely and unintrusively would be a world where no one would go hungry for lack of food, no one would die from hypothermia or heat stroke for lack of a proper home or heating system or clothing, no one would die from disease for lack of vaccines or medicine, no one would have to fund terrorists to keep their cars running, and so on. To deny people the use of such technology would be unspeakably cruel, IMO.
There would still be demand for innovation, but innovators would have to be compensated for actually innovating, not just selling copies of something they invented in the past.
I want to program something new....somthing I want, something that I thing other people will want. I also want to get paid to do what I like to do...innovate.
Then what's stopping you? Come up with an idea, but instead of doing all the work up front for free, find some people who also want to see that idea realized and are willing to pay you to develop it. If no one is, then you know there's no market for your idea, and you can either go through with writing the program (without the expectation that you'll make money from it) or move on to something more people are willing to pay for. On the other hand, if you do find customers, you'll be guaranteed payment before you write a single line of code.
I personally don't want to wage a compain everytime I have an new idea.
Well, it'd be nice if we could all get people to invest in our projects without lifting a finger, but I don't think that's realistic. If you want someone to give you money, you have to find him somehow.
I have no idea how this relates to free speech. It relates to having an incentive to innovate.
Copyright is inseparable from free speech issues. If I can't send you a certain sequence of numbers because someone else has dibs on it, that's an obvious restriction on my speech.. and unlike the universally-accepted restriction on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, the only purpose this restriction serves is to put a buck in someone's pocket.
How many other professions is it legal to take a customers product and sell it. If company A does not give away the source code or restricts your ability use the source code then you do not have the right to take what they have worked to produce and sell it.
The only ethical obligation to get permission before you take something is when you're taking it away from someone. If you're merely taking a copy, you have every right to do so.
What if you spent several man years, and thousands of dollars to release a product, lets say a scientific software product were "users" could benefit from having the source. Now what if someone else comes along repackages your code and sells it for 1/2 what your are selling it for?
Man, if that happened, I'd sure feel dumb for spending all that time and money on a scheme that anyone could undercut so easily. Why would I do all that work for free, just hoping to get paid later? If I'd been smarter, I would've waited until someone paid me, or at least signed an agreement to pay, before I started working on it in the first place.
Is that fair to you...the creator and spender of monies on the original product.
It's as fair as the tide washing away a sand castle that I spent hours making on the beach. Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean you get to keep control over it for the rest of your life.
What if your familly depended upon the income from the business you were starting to survive? What if you are indebt to start the business?
Then you've made some bad choices.
What if you invest your life savings in lottery tickets - does that mean you deserve to win the lottery, just because if you don't, you will have lost your life savings? Of course not. You knew the rules before you got in. And if you decide to bet your family's well-being and financial stability on being able to sell thousands of copies of a file, when you know that everyone in the world can copy it for free and there's nothing you can really do to stop it (or even detect that it has happened), then you're making a big mistake.
My point is that creators of a product should have the right to choose how, or if, the allow others to use that product...with certain limitiation of course.
I cannot agree. Putting work into the production of something isn't what gives you ownership over it - if it were, then gifts and inheritance could be taken away at a whim, since you didn't work for them, and you'd be able to claim ownership of things like sand castles and graffiti. The purpose of ownership is to sort out who can use the type of property that can only be in one place at a time. Not everything needs an owner, and the things that don't need owners shouldn't have them, because giving that exclusive control to one person needlessly restricts everyone else's freedom (and in this case, that means freedom of speech).
Sure we do some innovation in the OSS world, but somethings require large teams, several rounds of design stages, and significant amounts of money to produce. Those things should be afforded certain protections.
Those things can be funded and developed without copyright. Think about it: your barber doesn't need control over the haircut he gives you once you leave his shop. Your mechanic doesn't need control over the fixes he makes to your car. You go in to the shop, explain what service you want performed, agree to pay for it, and then they perform the service.
That model works just as well when the service is writing a program instead of replacing a fan belt. If the project is big enough, you may need to collect a lot of money before you can start, but the internet makes it easy to collect a little money from a lot of people. If presidential candidates can collect millions of dollars from individual contributions, so can programmers, musicians, and filmmakers.
I have seen to many children who engaged in sex at a young age develop issues that needed therapy as a result ranging from relational issues and abusive partner selection to depression an in some cases swearing off sex altogether.
How many of them *willingly* engaged in sex at a young age? The studies I've seen of youths who engaged in sex with older partners have shown a strong correlation between willingness to engage in those acts and psychological adjustment at college age - the only ones with psychological issues were the ones who were forced into acts they didn't want.
Why should you have the right to redistribute a work that someone else made? [...] Fine I have every right to take your car out tonight. I mean who do you think you are locking your car up. Just because you worked hard to paint it, pay for it, or whatever, sure as hell deosn't give you the right to lock me out of it.
Two words: own and deprive. The fact that I own the car means that I have the right not to be deprived of it.
A car needs an owner, because it can only be in one place at a time. If I'm driving my car to Seattle, you can't drive it to Chicago simultaneously. If you want to use it, that will mean limiting what I can do with it - depriving me of it. (Even if you use it while I'm on vacation and fill the tank back up, you'll put wear on the car, shortening its useful life.)
Somehow, we as a society have to decide who can use it, and the way we've chosen to do that is by declaring one person the owner. Ownership isn't directly related to the work you put into getting or making something: if you receive a gift or an inheritance, it still becomes your property, equal to the house you saved up to buy and the sculpture in your studio.
A program doesn't need an owner. I can have a copy of your program on my hard drive, and any changes I make to it will only affect my copy. I can make more copies, delete them, or post them on my web site, and it won't affect what you can do with that program. You can recompile it, copy it, or post it on your web site just as easily as you ever could; nothing I do with my copy of the program can deprive you of yours. With no need for ownership, there's no ethical reason for either of us to be given any exclusive claim over the use of it, since that claim would come at everyone else's expense.
The common objection here is, "But it's harder for me to sell copies of the program if someone else is giving it away for free!"
If that's what you're thinking, then consider this. How many professions are there where you'd expect it to be illegal for others to compete with you?
I *thought* I grapsed the "consequences of pregnancy" at 15 years old. [...] Then I had my first kid at 35 and the second at age 37.
Congratulations! As a teenager, you knew what the consequences of pregnancy might be, and you didn't have a kid until 20 years later. My system works.
I'm not saying it's possible for teenage nonparents to know all about what it's like to be a parent. I'm saying they can recognize that now is not the time for them to have kids, and they can take precautions against becoming parents before they're ready for it.
Idealism is fine but it often conflicts with experience.
You don't need experience being hit by cars to know that you shouldn't play in traffic.
The consequences of smoking and drinking aren't that hard to grasp either, yet children tend to flock to both when given a chance.
There are a lot more adult smokers and drinkers than there are minors, aren't there? People like nicotine and alcohol, not just children.
It doesn't matter, because for a teenager, there's nothing better than being thought of as an adult.
Heh. If someone wants to be thought of as an adult, what better way to get him to smoke or drink than to tell him smoking and drinking are only for adults?
There's a huge difference between knowing a bunch of facts and learning something.
And yet, in this case, knowing the facts is enough. If you know that you can have sex with very little risk just by putting on a condom, you'll do it. It worked for me.
Condoms? How are they gonna get em? Birth control? Yeah, little Susie at 14 is going to go ask her mom to take her to the doctor for a birth control prescription.
Thanks for making my point for me. If you want to reduce pregnancies, make condoms and birth control available to the teenagers who want them. They're going to try their damnedest to have sex anyway, and some of them are going to succeed no matter how their parents, teachers, or state legislators try to stop them.
Sex for pre-teens and early teens is absolutely self destructive. They don't fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, and the result many times is an early pregnancy, and with it for the girls, the stigma of being a young mother or the slut who had the abortion.
I'm so sick of this pseudo-argument. The consequences of sex (mainly pregnancy and disease) just aren't that hard to grasp, and there's no doubt in my mind that any teenager can understand them. I certainly could at that age.
It isn't the kind of knowledge that can only be gained through years of experience; it's a collection of straightforward facts, the kind of knowledge that can be printed on a flyer and handed out on the street corner.
The solution is education. Every teenager should know (1) how pregnancy occurs, (2) why pregnancy at a young age is bad, (3) how disease is transmitted, (4) why STDs are bad, and (5) how to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease. Anyone around the age of puberty who can't learn all that in, say, two weeks will never be able to understand it, and will probably suffer many other problems throughout their sad, clueless lives.
Of course, that education doesn't help much if teenagers aren't able to get it (e.g. their parents pull them out of sex education classes, or the school board implements an "abstinence only" curriculum with no real information), or if they can't use that knowledge to protect themselves (e.g. no access to condoms or birth control). So the other half of the solution is to support honest, factual sex education programs, as well as Planned Parenthood and/or other groups that make contraception available to anyone who needs it.
The two major threats the PCs these days are [...] and zombies to add your PC to a botnet, which Linux is more resistant to, again, because of not running as root.
Er, what? You can participate in a botnet just as easily if you're running as non-root. Maybe a couple of the typical botnet attacks require raw packets and thus root access, and you won't be able to listen on ports under 1024 (as if that matters), but you'll still be able to participate in other distributed attacks (e.g. slamming a web server with requests), store files to be picked up later, act as a proxy for IRC or more nefarious connections, and so on.
Also, remember that running as non-root is hardly a feature unique to Linux. You can easily do it on Windows too - the problem is people don't, because they don't grasp the importance of it.
Does anyone else see the problem with this?.Net is so platform specific that most of what you learn is non-portable.
Not really. The.NET Framework is an API like any other. For maintaining a Win32 project written in C, you'd probably prefer a Pascal programmer with 10 years of experience using the Win32 API over a C programmer who's never touched it. Learning the differences between Pascal and C is a lot easier than learning the whole API.
With.NET, it's similar. Learning the differences between VB, C#, J#, C++/CLI, etc. is easier than learning how to use the framework. But there's an added bonus: the code you write can easily interact with other.NET languages. So if you're bringing on a VB.NET programmer to upgrade your C# application, he can write all his new classes in VB. If he needs to alter the C# code, he can learn a bit of C#, or just rewrite those classes in VB if he prefers.
Do they let you download custom ring-tones yet, or does this somehow 'require' paying verizon?
You can transfer ringtones for free with a data cable, or email them to your phone as attachments for the price of a picture message ($0.25 if you don't have a package).
Was the original statement intended to mean, "I don't like homosexual males" or was it said without thinking? If the latter, changing "this is so gay" to "this is so homosexual" basically means, "I don't like people who make a big deal out of things" or in a slightly rougher form, "shut up and quit bitching at me".
Actually, I think it means "I'm an immature bastard so I'll go out of my way to offend you even more".
It's a case where you make them feel like a shithead, which breeds resentment,
If they feel like a shithead when someone points out that using "gay" to mean "stupid" is offensive to gays.. well, frankly, they deserve to. How dumb does someone have to be not to realize it's offensive?
If you're personally offended by someone using an anti-group-x term to mean "stupid" or "bad", instead of bringing up group-x, why not just say, "why don't you just say what you mean?" and encourage people to use words which accurately communicate their intended ideas.
Because that's not the objection at all. "This is gay" *does* accurately communicate their intended idea; most people know that "gay" has become an offensive synonym for "stupid". The objection is that it's rude to use a social group's name as a synonym for "stupid".
So from your line of thinking, I could could 'borrow' a draft of 'car x' from a company and start producing that car myself?
Yup, as long as you don't commit fraud by claiming you designed it or they manufactured it.
What would be the point of ever creating a new idea when you can just steal others?
You tell me. What's the point of creating anything new when you can just use an existing one?
Do you think the only reason people started using Linux is because they were afraid of being caught pirating Windows? Of course not. Thousands of people have devoted their time to researching and producing software mainly because what's out there wasn't good enough for them.
As long as there is demand for new ideas, there will be a market for people to get paid for coming up with them. Even if it requires a business model we can't forsee yet--and in most cases, it doesn't--there will be a way for people to get paid for coming up with new ideas, because their talent is scarce and therefore valuable, even though the ideas themselves are not.
The only difference between stealing a CD and downloading the CD illegally is about 50 cents worth of packaging. No one gives a shit about the actual physical CD. So the difference is negligible.
Wrong. You know who cares about stealing a CD? The store you stole it from. Now they're out $8 or whatever it cost them to buy it from their distributor, and they have nothing to show for it. You deprive them of something when you steal it; that is, in fact, the very essence of why stealing is wrong.
When you copy a file, no one is deprived of anything. (You may be less likely to buy it in the future, but if that makes it stealing, then writing a negative review of the album is also stealing, and on a much larger scale.)
Most slashdotters feel that if they don't agree to the law then they don't have to follow it, now they don't have to feel guilty!
Why should they feel guilty if it's legal? Do you want people to use the law as a guide for their behavior or not?
Is stealing physical property going to be legalized next?
Of course not, because there are huge fundamental differences between physical property and intangible "property", and reasonable people know that the analogy between downloading music and stealing CDs (or any other physical property) is as far-fetched as the analogy between gay marriage and interspecies marriage.
If it ever becomes possible to "steal" a copy of a physical object, leaving the original in place, then your analogy would hold up - but then we'd have to ask ourselves what's so bad about making a copy of a car if the owner still gets to keep the original.
With Verizon's 1xRTT network, you can get up to 144 kbps (in practice, more like 80-100 kbps) even without a data plan. In most of the country, this is still the best you can get; EVDO is only available in the biggest markets.
Most if not all America's Choice plans include "NationalAccess MOU", which lets you use 1xRTT data connections at the same rates as voice calls--i.e., free at night and on weekends. Officially, you're not supposed to use it for anything but Mobile Web and Get It Now, which are features built into the phone, but they never seem to enforce that rule. The latency on 1xRTT sucks, but it's fast enough for checking your email, trolling Slashdot, or even playing slow-paced games like Puzzle Pirates.
BTW, to use it, set your PPP software to dial #777 with the username "(your 10 digit phone number)@vzw3g.com" and the password "vzw".
I'm a little surprised that you didn't answer my questions. Is it really so hard for you to express your own opinion on an issue instead of merely explaining what the law says about it? Or does your work as (I presume) a patent attorney bind you to some code of ethics where you aren't allowed to comment on such things in public?
A cell phone running Windows Mobile costs at least three times that, even with a two year contract. If these actually get produced, will we be able to reap the rewards here in the first world?
Even the example you give, "Of course [it's not patentable]," is factually incorrect.
I didn't say it wasn't patentable. I said I don't deserve a patent on it. There's a big difference.
Do you--as a human being capable of holding your own opinions, not a robot applying laws that have been written by others--think I (or anyone else) deserve the exclusive right to make, say, a ham and peanut butter sandwich, or a box of coins with a cat on top? Would granting that patent benefit society in some way? Would the restriction on everyone's ability to make sandwiches (or stack things on top of other things) be a fair price to pay for whatever benefit might come from the patent?
The "significant amounts of research" contrasted with "combiningi two common concepts such as 'wireless' and 'email'" have as much to do with patentability as do pretty drawings.
I know that. Please, stop wasting my time and yours by explaining what the law currently is. I can see from the consequences of the law that it needs changing, and explaining the details of the existing (flawed) law isn't convincing me that it's not flawed.
In a better patent system--again, not the one in place today--there would be a legally recognized difference between researching a new technology and combining two technologies that are already in common use.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT OBVIOUSNESS UNDER 35 USC 103 MEANS.
What do the first note of the diatonic scale and the University of Southern California have to do with this discussion? YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "DO" AND "USC" MEAN!:P
Look, you're the one who insists on applying the legal definition of "obviousness", and it seems just to be making you angry. How about you stop trying to apply definitions I'm not using, and just worry about what I actually meant?
If you had ANY clue [...] you would know that "documented prior art of both wireless communications and email" is insufficient.
No shit. The wireless email patent was granted!
I'm saying it shouldn't have been granted because that prior art should have been enough.
How do you go about making msg? If you had to do it in your kitchen, would you even bother?
It's not that hard.. glutamate is naturally present in many foods such as parmesan cheese, asparagus, peas, and tomatoes, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) is simply a form of glutamate that's easy to package and cook with. According to Wikipedia, MSG was first discovered in crystals left behind after evaporating kombu broth, which is a common Japanese soup stock made by heating seaweed in water. Making MSG in your own kitchen is probably easier than making baking soda, sugar, table salt, and many other basic ingredients.
You've already argued that 1) you will not allow people to license the patent to whomever they like, and 2) people are allowed to license their patent to whomever they like.
Nonsense. I don't know where you got (1) from, but I sure never said it. There's a difference between transfering a patent to someone else and granting them a license to use the patented invention, yes?
If the prior art does not teach the combination, then making that combination is indeed something new, no matter how slight or "easy to come up with". And according to the statutes, that spark is an invention. If it wasn't an invention, why can't you find any example of it in the prior art?
Look, let's say I stack 65 pennies on top of 15 nickels, put them all inside a cardboard box, and then put a cat on top of the box. Has anyone ever done that before? Possibly, but let's say no. Do I deserve a patent on it? Of course not. It's obvious to anyone who knows about the concept of stacking, even if there's no prior art. Giving me a monopoly on this "invention" benefits no one (except possibly me), and was entirely unnecessary, because if it ever became necessary to put a cat on top of a box of coins, whoever was in that situation would figure it out in moments.
Because without the legal definition of "obvious," your statement is completely devoid of informational value. What does common English "obvious" have to do with anything in patents? [...] You chose to use the word "obvious" because you're vaguely aware that patents are not supposed to be granted for "obvious inventions,"
No, I chose it because it doesn't make sense to me to grant someone a patent on something so obvious. Whether the word "obvious" also appears in the law is irrelevant. As we both know, I was expressing my personal opinion about whether these people deserve to shut down a wireless email service, not interpreting the law or suggesting that the patent was illegal.
Eventually somebody besides the Wright brothers would have figured out heavier-than-air flight. Someone other than Edison would have eventually figured out a workable light bulb.
I really don't think I need to explain to you the difference between inventing light bulbs and heavier than air flight, which required significant amounts of research, and combining two common concepts such as "wireless" and "email".
Because that guy was the first to make the combination, recognize how awesome it was, told the public how to make and use his invention, thereby expanded the information in the public knowledge
No, I'm sorry, putting two common things together doesn't expand the public knowledge, any more than stacking 65 pennies on top of 15 nickels does. Of course you can stack coins on top of other coins; the exact number and denomination is an insignificant detail. Of course you can send email messages and notifications over a wireless connection; the exact protocol is an insignificant detail, and there are only a few reasonable ways to implement it anyway.
Additionally, it makes the decisions of the USPTO entirely arbitrary. CompanyA files application, "Nope, too obvious." CompanyA files 2nd application, "Nope, too obvious." CompanyA has no clear indication of why it's too obvious because the USPTO is making arbitrary decisions not based on documented prior art.
I hate to break it to you, but there is documented prior art of both wireless communications and email.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the pirates will figure out some way to work around this [...] but if this kind of technology can prevail and advance, it will allow those of us legally using our own purchased goods to do so without worry, while punishing those who deserve it.
No one deserves to be punished just for sharing a music file.
When have embargos worked?
South Africa, 1994.
How come no one has sued Microsoft for making xbox games unplayable on a playstation? Or Nintendo for not allowing gamecube games to work on a pc? It seems the concept is the same: I have a hardware platform (game console, ipod) and I have content that works on said content platform (games, itunes tracks).
There is a significant difference that, as a Slashdot user, you should already have recognized.
That is, there are legitimate technical reasons why you can't play a PS2 game on your Xbox. The two consoles use different processors, different graphics units, etc... it's like complaining that you can't run your gasoline engine on diesel fuel, or you can't fill your fountain pen up with mechanical pencil leads, or you can't play VHS tapes in your DVD player. In order to make PS2 games play on the Xbox or vice versa, one of the systems would have to be completely redesigned; no one who understands how the systems work would expect them to have the ability to play each other's games.
In the case of iPod and iTMS, however, there are no legitimate technical reasons for the lockout. Apple could very easily release the details of FairPlay and let other stores (e.g. Real) sell DRM'd music for the iPod. iTMS could very easily sell music in other formats so the tracks could be played on more than just an iPod. The only changes needed would be to the software and company policy, and those changes could be implemented in a matter of weeks, if not days. The only reason Apple hasn't done it is that they make money from tying their player to their own music store.
More like C--/CLI, since C++ and C-- have the same value anyway. ;)
So basically you think all innovation should be done at the corporate level. Meaning that if a company with money hasn't come up with the idea then it isn't worth doing? Sorry I can't agree with you on this.
Huh. You come up with an idea that isn't in any of my posts, attack it, and then tell me you don't agree with it.
Look at a hypothetical future where real objects can be copied with a material printer. So does everyone in the world have a right to everything that exsists simple because it can be copied? Before you say yes at least reflect on what that would do to the world.
A right to everything that exists? Not necessarily.. there are legitimate reasons to keep everyone from having, say, nuclear weapons, or their neighbors' credit cards.
But for the most part, yes - a world where physical objects could be copied freely and unintrusively would be a world where no one would go hungry for lack of food, no one would die from hypothermia or heat stroke for lack of a proper home or heating system or clothing, no one would die from disease for lack of vaccines or medicine, no one would have to fund terrorists to keep their cars running, and so on. To deny people the use of such technology would be unspeakably cruel, IMO.
There would still be demand for innovation, but innovators would have to be compensated for actually innovating, not just selling copies of something they invented in the past.
I want to program something new....somthing I want, something that I thing other people will want. I also want to get paid to do what I like to do...innovate.
Then what's stopping you? Come up with an idea, but instead of doing all the work up front for free, find some people who also want to see that idea realized and are willing to pay you to develop it. If no one is, then you know there's no market for your idea, and you can either go through with writing the program (without the expectation that you'll make money from it) or move on to something more people are willing to pay for. On the other hand, if you do find customers, you'll be guaranteed payment before you write a single line of code.
I personally don't want to wage a compain everytime I have an new idea.
Well, it'd be nice if we could all get people to invest in our projects without lifting a finger, but I don't think that's realistic. If you want someone to give you money, you have to find him somehow.
I have no idea how this relates to free speech. It relates to having an incentive to innovate.
Copyright is inseparable from free speech issues. If I can't send you a certain sequence of numbers because someone else has dibs on it, that's an obvious restriction on my speech.. and unlike the universally-accepted restriction on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, the only purpose this restriction serves is to put a buck in someone's pocket.
How many other professions is it legal to take a customers product and sell it. If company A does not give away the source code or restricts your ability use the source code then you do not have the right to take what they have worked to produce and sell it.
The only ethical obligation to get permission before you take something is when you're taking it away from someone. If you're merely taking a copy, you have every right to do so.
What if you spent several man years, and thousands of dollars to release a product, lets say a scientific software product were "users" could benefit from having the source. Now what if someone else comes along repackages your code and sells it for 1/2 what your are selling it for?
Man, if that happened, I'd sure feel dumb for spending all that time and money on a scheme that anyone could undercut so easily. Why would I do all that work for free, just hoping to get paid later? If I'd been smarter, I would've waited until someone paid me, or at least signed an agreement to pay, before I started working on it in the first place.
Is that fair to you...the creator and spender of monies on the original product.
It's as fair as the tide washing away a sand castle that I spent hours making on the beach. Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean you get to keep control over it for the rest of your life.
What if your familly depended upon the income from the business you were starting to survive? What if you are indebt to start the business?
Then you've made some bad choices.
What if you invest your life savings in lottery tickets - does that mean you deserve to win the lottery, just because if you don't, you will have lost your life savings? Of course not. You knew the rules before you got in. And if you decide to bet your family's well-being and financial stability on being able to sell thousands of copies of a file, when you know that everyone in the world can copy it for free and there's nothing you can really do to stop it (or even detect that it has happened), then you're making a big mistake.
My point is that creators of a product should have the right to choose how, or if, the allow others to use that product...with certain limitiation of course.
I cannot agree. Putting work into the production of something isn't what gives you ownership over it - if it were, then gifts and inheritance could be taken away at a whim, since you didn't work for them, and you'd be able to claim ownership of things like sand castles and graffiti. The purpose of ownership is to sort out who can use the type of property that can only be in one place at a time. Not everything needs an owner, and the things that don't need owners shouldn't have them, because giving that exclusive control to one person needlessly restricts everyone else's freedom (and in this case, that means freedom of speech).
Sure we do some innovation in the OSS world, but somethings require large teams, several rounds of design stages, and significant amounts of money to produce. Those things should be afforded certain protections.
Those things can be funded and developed without copyright. Think about it: your barber doesn't need control over the haircut he gives you once you leave his shop. Your mechanic doesn't need control over the fixes he makes to your car. You go in to the shop, explain what service you want performed, agree to pay for it, and then they perform the service.
That model works just as well when the service is writing a program instead of replacing a fan belt. If the project is big enough, you may need to collect a lot of money before you can start, but the internet makes it easy to collect a little money from a lot of people. If presidential candidates can collect millions of dollars from individual contributions, so can programmers, musicians, and filmmakers.
I have seen to many children who engaged in sex at a young age develop issues that needed therapy as a result ranging from relational issues and abusive partner selection to depression an in some cases swearing off sex altogether.
How many of them *willingly* engaged in sex at a young age? The studies I've seen of youths who engaged in sex with older partners have shown a strong correlation between willingness to engage in those acts and psychological adjustment at college age - the only ones with psychological issues were the ones who were forced into acts they didn't want.
Why should you have the right to redistribute a work that someone else made? [...] Fine I have every right to take your car out tonight. I mean who do you think you are locking your car up. Just because you worked hard to paint it, pay for it, or whatever, sure as hell deosn't give you the right to lock me out of it.
Two words: own and deprive. The fact that I own the car means that I have the right not to be deprived of it.
A car needs an owner, because it can only be in one place at a time. If I'm driving my car to Seattle, you can't drive it to Chicago simultaneously. If you want to use it, that will mean limiting what I can do with it - depriving me of it. (Even if you use it while I'm on vacation and fill the tank back up, you'll put wear on the car, shortening its useful life.)
Somehow, we as a society have to decide who can use it, and the way we've chosen to do that is by declaring one person the owner. Ownership isn't directly related to the work you put into getting or making something: if you receive a gift or an inheritance, it still becomes your property, equal to the house you saved up to buy and the sculpture in your studio.
A program doesn't need an owner. I can have a copy of your program on my hard drive, and any changes I make to it will only affect my copy. I can make more copies, delete them, or post them on my web site, and it won't affect what you can do with that program. You can recompile it, copy it, or post it on your web site just as easily as you ever could; nothing I do with my copy of the program can deprive you of yours. With no need for ownership, there's no ethical reason for either of us to be given any exclusive claim over the use of it, since that claim would come at everyone else's expense.
The common objection here is, "But it's harder for me to sell copies of the program if someone else is giving it away for free!"
If that's what you're thinking, then consider this. How many professions are there where you'd expect it to be illegal for others to compete with you?
I *thought* I grapsed the "consequences of pregnancy" at 15 years old. [...] Then I had my first kid at 35 and the second at age 37.
Congratulations! As a teenager, you knew what the consequences of pregnancy might be, and you didn't have a kid until 20 years later. My system works.
I'm not saying it's possible for teenage nonparents to know all about what it's like to be a parent. I'm saying they can recognize that now is not the time for them to have kids, and they can take precautions against becoming parents before they're ready for it.
Idealism is fine but it often conflicts with experience.
You don't need experience being hit by cars to know that you shouldn't play in traffic.
The consequences of smoking and drinking aren't that hard to grasp either, yet children tend to flock to both when given a chance.
There are a lot more adult smokers and drinkers than there are minors, aren't there? People like nicotine and alcohol, not just children.
It doesn't matter, because for a teenager, there's nothing better than being thought of as an adult.
Heh. If someone wants to be thought of as an adult, what better way to get him to smoke or drink than to tell him smoking and drinking are only for adults?
There's a huge difference between knowing a bunch of facts and learning something.
And yet, in this case, knowing the facts is enough. If you know that you can have sex with very little risk just by putting on a condom, you'll do it. It worked for me.
Condoms? How are they gonna get em? Birth control? Yeah, little Susie at 14 is going to go ask her mom to take her to the doctor for a birth control prescription.
Thanks for making my point for me. If you want to reduce pregnancies, make condoms and birth control available to the teenagers who want them. They're going to try their damnedest to have sex anyway, and some of them are going to succeed no matter how their parents, teachers, or state legislators try to stop them.
Sex for pre-teens and early teens is absolutely self destructive. They don't fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, and the result many times is an early pregnancy, and with it for the girls, the stigma of being a young mother or the slut who had the abortion.
I'm so sick of this pseudo-argument. The consequences of sex (mainly pregnancy and disease) just aren't that hard to grasp, and there's no doubt in my mind that any teenager can understand them. I certainly could at that age.
It isn't the kind of knowledge that can only be gained through years of experience; it's a collection of straightforward facts, the kind of knowledge that can be printed on a flyer and handed out on the street corner.
The solution is education. Every teenager should know (1) how pregnancy occurs, (2) why pregnancy at a young age is bad, (3) how disease is transmitted, (4) why STDs are bad, and (5) how to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease. Anyone around the age of puberty who can't learn all that in, say, two weeks will never be able to understand it, and will probably suffer many other problems throughout their sad, clueless lives.
Of course, that education doesn't help much if teenagers aren't able to get it (e.g. their parents pull them out of sex education classes, or the school board implements an "abstinence only" curriculum with no real information), or if they can't use that knowledge to protect themselves (e.g. no access to condoms or birth control). So the other half of the solution is to support honest, factual sex education programs, as well as Planned Parenthood and/or other groups that make contraception available to anyone who needs it.
Thankfully, we live in an age when sex doesn't have to lead to pregnancy unless you want it to.
The two major threats the PCs these days are [...] and zombies to add your PC to a botnet, which Linux is more resistant to, again, because of not running as root.
Er, what? You can participate in a botnet just as easily if you're running as non-root. Maybe a couple of the typical botnet attacks require raw packets and thus root access, and you won't be able to listen on ports under 1024 (as if that matters), but you'll still be able to participate in other distributed attacks (e.g. slamming a web server with requests), store files to be picked up later, act as a proxy for IRC or more nefarious connections, and so on.
Also, remember that running as non-root is hardly a feature unique to Linux. You can easily do it on Windows too - the problem is people don't, because they don't grasp the importance of it.
Does anyone else see the problem with this? .Net is so platform specific that most of what you learn is non-portable.
.NET Framework is an API like any other. For maintaining a Win32 project written in C, you'd probably prefer a Pascal programmer with 10 years of experience using the Win32 API over a C programmer who's never touched it. Learning the differences between Pascal and C is a lot easier than learning the whole API.
.NET, it's similar. Learning the differences between VB, C#, J#, C++/CLI, etc. is easier than learning how to use the framework. But there's an added bonus: the code you write can easily interact with other .NET languages. So if you're bringing on a VB.NET programmer to upgrade your C# application, he can write all his new classes in VB. If he needs to alter the C# code, he can learn a bit of C#, or just rewrite those classes in VB if he prefers.
Not really. The
With
Do they let you download custom ring-tones yet, or does this somehow 'require' paying verizon?
You can transfer ringtones for free with a data cable, or email them to your phone as attachments for the price of a picture message ($0.25 if you don't have a package).
Was the original statement intended to mean, "I don't like homosexual males" or was it said without thinking? If the latter, changing "this is so gay" to "this is so homosexual" basically means, "I don't like people who make a big deal out of things" or in a slightly rougher form, "shut up and quit bitching at me".
Actually, I think it means "I'm an immature bastard so I'll go out of my way to offend you even more".
It's a case where you make them feel like a shithead, which breeds resentment,
If they feel like a shithead when someone points out that using "gay" to mean "stupid" is offensive to gays.. well, frankly, they deserve to. How dumb does someone have to be not to realize it's offensive?
If you're personally offended by someone using an anti-group-x term to mean "stupid" or "bad", instead of bringing up group-x, why not just say, "why don't you just say what you mean?" and encourage people to use words which accurately communicate their intended ideas.
Because that's not the objection at all. "This is gay" *does* accurately communicate their intended idea; most people know that "gay" has become an offensive synonym for "stupid". The objection is that it's rude to use a social group's name as a synonym for "stupid".
So from your line of thinking, I could could 'borrow' a draft of 'car x' from a company and start producing that car myself?
Yup, as long as you don't commit fraud by claiming you designed it or they manufactured it.
What would be the point of ever creating a new idea when you can just steal others?
You tell me. What's the point of creating anything new when you can just use an existing one?
Do you think the only reason people started using Linux is because they were afraid of being caught pirating Windows? Of course not. Thousands of people have devoted their time to researching and producing software mainly because what's out there wasn't good enough for them.
As long as there is demand for new ideas, there will be a market for people to get paid for coming up with them. Even if it requires a business model we can't forsee yet--and in most cases, it doesn't--there will be a way for people to get paid for coming up with new ideas, because their talent is scarce and therefore valuable, even though the ideas themselves are not.
The only difference between stealing a CD and downloading the CD illegally is about 50 cents worth of packaging. No one gives a shit about the actual physical CD. So the difference is negligible.
Wrong. You know who cares about stealing a CD? The store you stole it from. Now they're out $8 or whatever it cost them to buy it from their distributor, and they have nothing to show for it. You deprive them of something when you steal it; that is, in fact, the very essence of why stealing is wrong.
When you copy a file, no one is deprived of anything. (You may be less likely to buy it in the future, but if that makes it stealing, then writing a negative review of the album is also stealing, and on a much larger scale.)
Most slashdotters feel that if they don't agree to the law then they don't have to follow it, now they don't have to feel guilty!
Why should they feel guilty if it's legal? Do you want people to use the law as a guide for their behavior or not?
Is stealing physical property going to be legalized next?
Of course not, because there are huge fundamental differences between physical property and intangible "property", and reasonable people know that the analogy between downloading music and stealing CDs (or any other physical property) is as far-fetched as the analogy between gay marriage and interspecies marriage.
If it ever becomes possible to "steal" a copy of a physical object, leaving the original in place, then your analogy would hold up - but then we'd have to ask ourselves what's so bad about making a copy of a car if the owner still gets to keep the original.
With Verizon's 1xRTT network, you can get up to 144 kbps (in practice, more like 80-100 kbps) even without a data plan. In most of the country, this is still the best you can get; EVDO is only available in the biggest markets.
Most if not all America's Choice plans include "NationalAccess MOU", which lets you use 1xRTT data connections at the same rates as voice calls--i.e., free at night and on weekends. Officially, you're not supposed to use it for anything but Mobile Web and Get It Now, which are features built into the phone, but they never seem to enforce that rule. The latency on 1xRTT sucks, but it's fast enough for checking your email, trolling Slashdot, or even playing slow-paced games like Puzzle Pirates.
BTW, to use it, set your PPP software to dial #777 with the username "(your 10 digit phone number)@vzw3g.com" and the password "vzw".
I'm a little surprised that you didn't answer my questions. Is it really so hard for you to express your own opinion on an issue instead of merely explaining what the law says about it? Or does your work as (I presume) a patent attorney bind you to some code of ethics where you aren't allowed to comment on such things in public?
A cell phone running Windows Mobile costs at least three times that, even with a two year contract. If these actually get produced, will we be able to reap the rewards here in the first world?
Even the example you give, "Of course [it's not patentable]," is factually incorrect.
:P
I didn't say it wasn't patentable. I said I don't deserve a patent on it. There's a big difference.
Do you--as a human being capable of holding your own opinions, not a robot applying laws that have been written by others--think I (or anyone else) deserve the exclusive right to make, say, a ham and peanut butter sandwich, or a box of coins with a cat on top? Would granting that patent benefit society in some way? Would the restriction on everyone's ability to make sandwiches (or stack things on top of other things) be a fair price to pay for whatever benefit might come from the patent?
The "significant amounts of research" contrasted with "combiningi two common concepts such as 'wireless' and 'email'" have as much to do with patentability as do pretty drawings.
I know that. Please, stop wasting my time and yours by explaining what the law currently is. I can see from the consequences of the law that it needs changing, and explaining the details of the existing (flawed) law isn't convincing me that it's not flawed.
In a better patent system--again, not the one in place today--there would be a legally recognized difference between researching a new technology and combining two technologies that are already in common use.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT OBVIOUSNESS UNDER 35 USC 103 MEANS.
What do the first note of the diatonic scale and the University of Southern California have to do with this discussion? YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "DO" AND "USC" MEAN!
Look, you're the one who insists on applying the legal definition of "obviousness", and it seems just to be making you angry. How about you stop trying to apply definitions I'm not using, and just worry about what I actually meant?
If you had ANY clue [...] you would know that "documented prior art of both wireless communications and email" is insufficient.
No shit. The wireless email patent was granted!
I'm saying it shouldn't have been granted because that prior art should have been enough.
How do you go about making msg? If you had to do it in your kitchen, would you even bother?
It's not that hard.. glutamate is naturally present in many foods such as parmesan cheese, asparagus, peas, and tomatoes, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) is simply a form of glutamate that's easy to package and cook with. According to Wikipedia, MSG was first discovered in crystals left behind after evaporating kombu broth, which is a common Japanese soup stock made by heating seaweed in water. Making MSG in your own kitchen is probably easier than making baking soda, sugar, table salt, and many other basic ingredients.
You've already argued that 1) you will not allow people to license the patent to whomever they like, and 2) people are allowed to license their patent to whomever they like.
Nonsense. I don't know where you got (1) from, but I sure never said it. There's a difference between transfering a patent to someone else and granting them a license to use the patented invention, yes?
If the prior art does not teach the combination, then making that combination is indeed something new, no matter how slight or "easy to come up with". And according to the statutes, that spark is an invention. If it wasn't an invention, why can't you find any example of it in the prior art?
Look, let's say I stack 65 pennies on top of 15 nickels, put them all inside a cardboard box, and then put a cat on top of the box. Has anyone ever done that before? Possibly, but let's say no. Do I deserve a patent on it? Of course not. It's obvious to anyone who knows about the concept of stacking, even if there's no prior art. Giving me a monopoly on this "invention" benefits no one (except possibly me), and was entirely unnecessary, because if it ever became necessary to put a cat on top of a box of coins, whoever was in that situation would figure it out in moments.
Because without the legal definition of "obvious," your statement is completely devoid of informational value. What does common English "obvious" have to do with anything in patents? [...] You chose to use the word "obvious" because you're vaguely aware that patents are not supposed to be granted for "obvious inventions,"
No, I chose it because it doesn't make sense to me to grant someone a patent on something so obvious. Whether the word "obvious" also appears in the law is irrelevant. As we both know, I was expressing my personal opinion about whether these people deserve to shut down a wireless email service, not interpreting the law or suggesting that the patent was illegal.
Eventually somebody besides the Wright brothers would have figured out heavier-than-air flight. Someone other than Edison would have eventually figured out a workable light bulb.
I really don't think I need to explain to you the difference between inventing light bulbs and heavier than air flight, which required significant amounts of research, and combining two common concepts such as "wireless" and "email".
Because that guy was the first to make the combination, recognize how awesome it was, told the public how to make and use his invention, thereby expanded the information in the public knowledge
No, I'm sorry, putting two common things together doesn't expand the public knowledge, any more than stacking 65 pennies on top of 15 nickels does. Of course you can stack coins on top of other coins; the exact number and denomination is an insignificant detail. Of course you can send email messages and notifications over a wireless connection; the exact protocol is an insignificant detail, and there are only a few reasonable ways to implement it anyway.
Additionally, it makes the decisions of the USPTO entirely arbitrary. CompanyA files application, "Nope, too obvious." CompanyA files 2nd application, "Nope, too obvious." CompanyA has no clear indication of why it's too obvious because the USPTO is making arbitrary decisions not based on documented prior art.
I hate to break it to you, but there is documented prior art of both wireless communications and email.