If it was Carmack's patent, then there would be no issue, as he could just offer the license under a free license or something. The problem is that it's not his patent, but Creative's.
Why? First in time, first in right. It's a concept that's existed in American law before we called it America.
Big fucking deal. Doesn't make it right in the least.
Why should you get the benefit of their months or years of hard work coming up with the idea?
You're jumping to assumptions. Stop it.
Most anti-software people parrot back the Supreme Court's holding regarding mathematical algorithms, but they don't really understand why the Supreme Court came to that decision.
Yes, they do. They also realize that locking software innovations away in patents for ~30 years does absolutely nothing to inspire innovation, and in most cases hampers it, as by the time these techniques are available to use, the industry has moved on.
. If Carmack was first and had gone open source in 1999, then he wouldn't be prevented at all. You can't really sit on your hands for 10 years, then take someone else's invention and claim you're giving it free to the world, without their permission, and expect plaudits.
Wow, what an incredibly shitty and inaccurate description of what happened. Carmack came forward with his invention in 2000.
If the first guy publishes, then the second guy doesn't have to waste his time working on the same thing.
No, now he not only wasted the time he spent trying to solve the problem, but now he has to waste more time trying to come up with a different solution because the one he was working toward is patented, meaning he can't fucking use it.
Patents do NOT reduce "wasted effort." In many cases, they increase it, due to now having to find a way of going around the patent, instead of using the obvious solution in the first place.
So the whole notion of "this is preventing the information from getting out to the public" is wrong.
Actually, it's right. While the algorithm may be out there, no one can use it until the patent expires. So it's effectively locked away from the public.
Patents "help protect innovation and creativity", because one has to release the details about how to do whatever it is that they're patenting. Once the patent ends, anyone can pull up the patent information and reproduce it. The process won't go to anyone's grave, nor will it forever remain a secret. It's already public record before they even get the papers granting the patent.
In the general sense, sure. However, when it comes to software, many of that will already be obsolete by the time the patent expires, meaning that disclosing it is next to worthless.
It obviously wasn't 'obvious' or someone should have come up with the optimization years earlier.
That statement is full of shit. Just because a technique hasn't been used before doesn't mean that the technique isn't obvious. The problem simply could not have come up before, or the hardware was not capable of performing to the level that would make the technique viable.
If they claimed to have invented it, then they would be able to produce lab books and documentation showing their research. If they can't, well then they're shit out of luck.
If it's so simple, why had no one come up with it before?
Because the problem hadn't come up before? To paraphrase your own response, lack of a technique being used before doesn't mean that the technique itself isn't obvious.
Or, it means that the people who studied and drafted the laws know a wee bit more than some anonymous internet hipsters who blithely declare that civilization has failed.
Highly doubtful that they actually knew about the software industry.
I don't see anything in the patent act that says that patents are only granted to inventions that are "deserving". Do you have a citation?
No, but it's definitely part of the justification behind patents being allowed in the Constitution.
How do you know that the second inventor didn't spend months and months working hard to come up with the idea?
Doesn't matter. Someone else was able to come up with independently, at around the same time. Meaning that it's not a novel solution, but it's the type of solution that a reasonable engineer, faced with a similar problem, would come up with.
If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about.
Again, tell that to those who began the research on cigarette smoking and health. They will slander you all they want, and that's definitely something you have to deal with.
There usually is quite a bit of paperwork that has to be done in order to do adult films. Typically there has to be signed and notarized paperwork indicating all of the actors are over 18. Most states usually also require STD tests to be done every so often, and results to be kept on file.
It would be possible to liquidate most of the company's assets, and use that to pay the employees for up to a year while they find other employment. And such an action would start at the bottom, not the top. Those making the least amount in the company would be the first to get paid.
I would think they'd have to be able to service existing contracts, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for them to exist. I do like the extremely tight controls on what they can charge, and what they can do with their profit. For one, VPs and other C level officers cannot leave the company. Second, their pay is slashed, and they get no bonuses or options as long as the company is in jail. The company cannot issue any more stock. Any profit they make, half of it is taken away. They are also not allowed to use any accounting tricks like the Dutch double dip.
No, his system is far more fair. Fining this company 2 million Euros has a far different impact than if, say, an average household was fined 2 million Euros. One is going to be able to absorb the costs. The other one has absolutely no chance of doing so.
It is a fucking subsidy. It just isn't a subsidy that involves money. They are still getting a monetary benefit from the government that they are bitching about other companies also receiving.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was Carmack's patent, then there would be no issue, as he could just offer the license under a free license or something. The problem is that it's not his patent, but Creative's.
Please consider, no one forces them to sell?
Please consider that the circumstances are not the same? Microsoft has far more power and pressure to exert in that situation that some college kid.
Why? First in time, first in right. It's a concept that's existed in American law before we called it America.
Big fucking deal. Doesn't make it right in the least.
Why should you get the benefit of their months or years of hard work coming up with the idea?
You're jumping to assumptions. Stop it.
Most anti-software people parrot back the Supreme Court's holding regarding mathematical algorithms, but they don't really understand why the Supreme Court came to that decision.
Yes, they do. They also realize that locking software innovations away in patents for ~30 years does absolutely nothing to inspire innovation, and in most cases hampers it, as by the time these techniques are available to use, the industry has moved on.
. If Carmack was first and had gone open source in 1999, then he wouldn't be prevented at all. You can't really sit on your hands for 10 years, then take someone else's invention and claim you're giving it free to the world, without their permission, and expect plaudits.
Wow, what an incredibly shitty and inaccurate description of what happened. Carmack came forward with his invention in 2000.
If the first guy publishes, then the second guy doesn't have to waste his time working on the same thing.
No, now he not only wasted the time he spent trying to solve the problem, but now he has to waste more time trying to come up with a different solution because the one he was working toward is patented, meaning he can't fucking use it.
Patents do NOT reduce "wasted effort." In many cases, they increase it, due to now having to find a way of going around the patent, instead of using the obvious solution in the first place.
So the whole notion of "this is preventing the information from getting out to the public" is wrong.
Actually, it's right. While the algorithm may be out there, no one can use it until the patent expires. So it's effectively locked away from the public.
Patents "help protect innovation and creativity", because one has to release the details about how to do whatever it is that they're patenting. Once the patent ends, anyone can pull up the patent information and reproduce it. The process won't go to anyone's grave, nor will it forever remain a secret. It's already public record before they even get the papers granting the patent.
In the general sense, sure. However, when it comes to software, many of that will already be obsolete by the time the patent expires, meaning that disclosing it is next to worthless.
No, they didn't. Stop your worthless trolling.
It obviously wasn't 'obvious' or someone should have come up with the optimization years earlier.
That statement is full of shit. Just because a technique hasn't been used before doesn't mean that the technique isn't obvious. The problem simply could not have come up before, or the hardware was not capable of performing to the level that would make the technique viable.
If they claimed to have invented it, then they would be able to produce lab books and documentation showing their research. If they can't, well then they're shit out of luck.
If it's so simple, why had no one come up with it before?
Because the problem hadn't come up before? To paraphrase your own response, lack of a technique being used before doesn't mean that the technique itself isn't obvious.
Or, it means that the people who studied and drafted the laws know a wee bit more than some anonymous internet hipsters who blithely declare that civilization has failed.
Highly doubtful that they actually knew about the software industry.
If the first inventor published early, then the second inventor wouldn't have to have wasted his time.
You're right; he'd have to waste even more time because the reasonable solution would be locked away in a patent, meaning he couldn't use it.
I don't see anything in the patent act that says that patents are only granted to inventions that are "deserving". Do you have a citation?
No, but it's definitely part of the justification behind patents being allowed in the Constitution.
How do you know that the second inventor didn't spend months and months working hard to come up with the idea?
Doesn't matter. Someone else was able to come up with independently, at around the same time. Meaning that it's not a novel solution, but it's the type of solution that a reasonable engineer, faced with a similar problem, would come up with.
Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.
No, it doesn't. They're supposed to release it. They had an excuse for Honeycomb, but that's all it was: An excuse.
And go fuck yourself with the whole "/. thinks everyone is supposed to release source code." That's not the case at all, and you're full of shit.
Got anything to actually back that theory up?
Well, I imagine that those states and counties without oversight will put it in place because allowing fracking.
And I would imagine you are delusional, and incredibly naive.
If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about.
Again, tell that to those who began the research on cigarette smoking and health. They will slander you all they want, and that's definitely something you have to deal with.
I don't think any actual evidence has backed this idea up.
Ok, the fact that you tried to join unions and organized crime together lets me know you're nothing but a shitty troll.
Why the fuck shouldn't it be profits? Again, they did something wrong. They should not be allowed to simply pass that on.
Quite frankly, I'm confused as to why you think that the company itself shouldn't be the one punished, but rather their customers.
Shitty troll is shitty.
There usually is quite a bit of paperwork that has to be done in order to do adult films. Typically there has to be signed and notarized paperwork indicating all of the actors are over 18. Most states usually also require STD tests to be done every so often, and results to be kept on file.
It would be possible to liquidate most of the company's assets, and use that to pay the employees for up to a year while they find other employment. And such an action would start at the bottom, not the top. Those making the least amount in the company would be the first to get paid.
I would think they'd have to be able to service existing contracts, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for them to exist. I do like the extremely tight controls on what they can charge, and what they can do with their profit. For one, VPs and other C level officers cannot leave the company. Second, their pay is slashed, and they get no bonuses or options as long as the company is in jail. The company cannot issue any more stock. Any profit they make, half of it is taken away. They are also not allowed to use any accounting tricks like the Dutch double dip.
No, his system is far more fair. Fining this company 2 million Euros has a far different impact than if, say, an average household was fined 2 million Euros. One is going to be able to absorb the costs. The other one has absolutely no chance of doing so.
Quite frankly, passing on costs of violations should be illegal. The company is the one that should have to suffer, not the consumer.
It is a fucking subsidy. It just isn't a subsidy that involves money. They are still getting a monetary benefit from the government that they are bitching about other companies also receiving.