Live data from Hacker News

Yahoo Crosses The Line

avc.com

211–220 of 236 posts

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#211
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.

Without copyright, for example, movies would have to recoup (most of) their production costs before ever showing the film to the public. Once they do, there is huge incentive for theaters to obtain third-party copies and show them without any remuneration to the moviemakers. There are similar arguments for books, music, and video games. How do you propose that this would work in practice?

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made. As much as we enjoy entertainment, we cannot claim it is implemented as cheaply as possible.

This would let the market actually sort out what is naturally viable.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.

There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...

Open-source writ large is a dumb marketing gimmick. As far as useful code goes, the people who care and respect other hackers release the code anyways, copyright or no.

"Free software" vastly overestimates the value and talent of the average user--I don't feel any pity for the average City Of Farm Wars user if they don't get the source to IE.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#213
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without copyright, for example, movies would have to recoup (most of) their production costs before ever showing the film to the public. Once they do, there is huge incentive for theaters to obtain third-party copies and show them without any remuneration to the moviemakers. There are similar arguments for books, music, and video games. How do you propose that this would work in practice?

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made. As much as we enjoy entertainment, we cannot claim it is implemented as cheaply as possible. This would let the market actually sort out what is naturally viable.

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made.

Because prefunding is effectively a requirement, there's no way for a creator to take a gamble, produce something with their own resources, and then try to make it up later. This is essentially the process by which all novelists get started now. Are you sure that prefunding is a suitable replacement?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#214
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

R&D costs actually make up a pretty small portion of the pie. It's unclear what if anything patents are doing to recoup those since they're all just copying each other with designer drugs that are just slightly different enough to not violate someone else's patent. The pharma industry is probably a better example than the software industry for why patents suck. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf

It costs ~$1B to bring a pharmaceutical to market because of the amount of testing and clinical trials required to make sure you're doing more good than harm. Of course some are copycat drugs, but that's going to be inevitable. There are real advances too, and those wouldn't happen without some ability to generate a return on the $1B or more you spent on the drug (let alone the hundreds of millions on drugs that didn…

So did you read the linked PDF?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#215
post #209
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So the author's reliance on this de facto "rule not to litigate" is flawed." And also historically ignorant. Yahoo did the same thing to Google when they went public in 2004. Somehow the world didn't end.

No, they didn't. Your memory of history is incorrect. Overture, a completely different company, sued Google in 2002, two years before their IPO. Yahoo purchased Overture in 2003. After this, Google settled. Google's IPO wasn't until 2004.

Thx for correction.

Google reveals that Y! did sue X-fire apparently over a buddy list patent in 2005 which would also make the same point though.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#216
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made. As much as we enjoy entertainment, we cannot claim it is implemented as cheaply as possible. This would let the market actually sort out what is naturally viable.

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made. Because prefunding is effectively a requirement, there's no way for a creator to take a gamble, produce something with their own resources, and then try to make it up later. This is essentially the process by which all novelists get started now. Are you sure that prefunding is a suitable replacement?

Ideas are cheap, tools for writing/directing/coding/filming/editing are cheap--hell, cheaper than they've ever been! I would disagree that this gamble is unavailable to anyone of even modest means.

If you can't raise sufficient funding, frankly, that's a your problem. There are a lot of people (myself and cofounders included) who prefund by working some job (of varying degrees of satisfaction) and diverting the funds towards development of their own creative enterprises.

In the absence of patrons, yeah, we fund ourselves, and one day it'll pay off--or it won't. That's life.

Novelists are great and all, but it seems obvious that if you cannot write something quickly enough on a budget, or in your freetime, and it isn't good enough to get picked up, well, sorry. The system should be in place to let you fail fast and figure out what to do next.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#217
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things worth being made would be prefunded, and things that aren't won't get made. Because prefunding is effectively a requirement, there's no way for a creator to take a gamble, produce something with their own resources, and then try to make it up later. This is essentially the process by which all novelists get started now. Are you sure that prefunding is a suitable replacement?

Ideas are cheap, tools for writing/directing/coding/filming/editing are cheap--hell, cheaper than they've ever been! I would disagree that this gamble is unavailable to anyone of even modest means. If you can't raise sufficient funding, frankly, that's a your problem . There are a lot of people (myself and cofounders included) who prefund by working some job (of varying degrees of satisfaction) and diverting the fund…

The gamble isn't available because the payoff isn't there. Why would any company pick up something that you've already made if they can't make any money on it due to the lack of copyright? They can publish it without paying you. Even if a publisher does pay you, some other publisher can undercut them because they didn't have to pay you.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#218

Well, I don't agree with the author. Why would it be ok for Yahoo and other big companies to use patents "only" to threaten small shops and keep the status quo? Let them fight between eachother, let Yahoo sue Facebook sue Gooogle sue Microsoft sue Apple sue HTC sue Samsung sue Sony sue Oracle sue ... let everyone sue everyone else. Let the total war on patents begin. Let the big players burn a ton of money on pointle…

This is already what happens. Changes have reinforced and will further reinforce the status quo and ensure that only the mega corporations will be able to play.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems. Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? > So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you. If the groupthink is right, yes. Groupthink isn't always right.…

> Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow? Some women might actually take offense at that, but I'd say no. But throwing Hitler into the analogy really does change its flavor, doesn't it? We're not talking about bulls and cows here. The analogy your position:my position::Satan:Jesus is a little bit more in line with the inflammatory one you actually used above. And in a c…

> And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing anything illegal.

No. They aren't doing anything illegal. They're doing something evil.

Mens rea is the mental state of doing evil. Not everything evil is illegal - for various reasons, some good and some bad. But the mental state is the same.

Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In short, you know you're a bad boy.

Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass murder. It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's still evil, like Hitler.

> But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong.

Anyone is entitled to be right for any reason at all. You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies.

Besides, you're missing something here. You make a living sending rockets up. We live where the rockets come down.

The existence of rocket impacts is purely conjectural to you - so you can call it "groupthink." It's a shared reality for us. It's not groupthink that the sky is blue.

Your profession nominally exists to serve our interests. In fact, it serves to suck our blood - when it isn't filling up our days with worthless bullshit. All genuine innovators, at least in our field, despise your rule with a passion. I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred.

> Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen.

No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present practices.

In other words, the American voter has exactly the same power over the patent industry that the German voter had over Hitler. Ie, at a first approximation, none.

> Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one.

Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.)

There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every other "country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of WIPO's derriere. Alas, ruling the world doesn't mean your turds are made of gold - though I'm sure it's been quite golden for you.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honey, before you were born I had some great flamewars with Mike Godwin on rec.arts.sf-lovers. HN is really turning into Reddit, isn't it?

> If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.) Taken from http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'll bet you're not just a patent lawyer, but a good one.
Post reply on HN