Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Silencing of Maya

niederfamily.blogspot.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#101

Post by jordo37 »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #96
kvnn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, take a look at this quote: The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store. If PRC was able to prove that to Apple, you hadn't read the OP but PRC had posted something about how people they trained stole their technology, wou…

It is important to keep a cool head and consider things objectively. That's why I think it's manipulative to inject emotion into this like the post does. It's one thing to empathize with this poor mother and quite another to consider the facts and have an honest, serious discussion. What has happened to this family is awful. There's no question about that and I feel just as bad for them as anyone. But now we can't ex…

Disagree. In the comments on HN we are free to discuss this without emotion, or referring to emotion but keeping it in check with logical arguments that respect the system, the inventor(s) and the critical user.

I find it unreasonable to expect a mother, on her personal blog, to keep the same detached sentiment when her child's literal voice is threatened.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#103

Post by nl »

monochromatic wrote: post #68
nl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you mean that same money that is literally the only reason that they provide these "essential" products? That simply isn't true. I know a lot of people who work on apps similar to this, or in related fields, and money is far from the only reason they do it. Infact, I know people who literally give away their work to make sure people can use it.

Yes, some people do. Not, however, Prentke Romich Company. (Which is perfectly fine of course.)

Exactly.

Speak for Yourself don't seem to be doing it only for the money (given their prices anyway).

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#104

Post by lukeschlather »

kvnn wrote: post #78
lukeschlather wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't Apple devices have locked bootloaders? I think it's a little disingenuous to say that Apple doesn't obstruct her from using Android when they have gone to a lot of trouble to ensure you can't run Android on an iPad. (Not to say you can't, but Apple has intentionally put up barriers to prevent it.)

I meant what I said more literally than you took it. Apple doesn't obstruct her from using Android. She can choose not to use Apple products. Edit: keep in mind this is what I was replying to: They reserved for themselves the power to obstruct the author's use of her own tools, which should be a human right second only to food and shelter.

Apple doesn't own the product; they sold it to her, and shouldn't obstruct her from using it as she sees fit. Your sentiment seems to imply that no one actually buys anything from Apple, they merely rent, and Apple rightly has the final say over how the renter uses the product. I don't see how the idea that she can simply choose to use another product really makes sense unless she's renting it.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#105

Post by sirclueless »

kika wrote: post #91
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #62

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? (1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundre…

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).

That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it.

To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I can make a razor with three blades set in plastic because it's been so long since that innovation came along. It might not be as snazzy and hence less profitable, but it gets the job done.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#106

Post by retrogradeorbit »

pasbesoin wrote: post #28
Karunamon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck does Jobs have to do with this? The man was a capitalist and hardly a philanthropist.

Cynically: He knew the value of PR. Less cynically: He knew the value of children, and that such a situation would be deserving of secondary review and a conservative (in the non-political sense) course of action -- or inaction, until such time as a legal determination was made. This might be one of those situations to benefit from that occasional, "direct line" to Jobs. Regardless of the final determination of intel…

> He knew the value of children

Haha! Unless their name was Lisa!

Steve Jobs initiated the corporate culture that continues to this day at Apple. He would not have changed anything in this situation.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#107

Post by wissler »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #62

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? (1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundre…

There is no moral justification for patents. Period. There can be no actually moral argument that says "you are not allowed to think of the same thing this other fellow did and then trade it with someone."

Patents are a form of feudalism. The very word "patent" is rooted in feudalism, where it used to be "land patents" that were granted to the landholders in the middle ages.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#108

Post by jfasi »

It's telling that the author hasn't received an offer for a free copy of PRC's product.

Think about it: the author writes touching human interest story that pulls at readers' heartstrings by genuinely presenting the dilemma he is faced with. The story resonates with the combined holy trinity of geek social news: "Apple is a soulless and evil," "The patent system is a parasite on the world," and "Indie game/software developers are sacrosanct." Outrage ensues.

What could make this all go away for PRC? Apologizing and offering the author a free copy of their product before he decides to launch a crusade and a PR nightmare. Instead, no such offer came through.

The question I want answered is, Why? Are these companies so clueless that they don't see the PR catastrophe brewing? Do they know and don't care?

I propose a teaching about the nature of social news in the form of an admittedly unlikely third explanation: The company performed a cost-benefit analysis and realized that the intersection of this blog's audience and the company's customer base is so small they can get away with ignoring them.

Your outrage is impotent. You can rage about this on the internet all you want, but it's not going to cause an inch of motion in any direction. If you want to do something other than express frustration, send letters to newspapers, don't post comments. These companies are going to have to lead marketing campaigns. Get the jump on them and make the first impression on their potential customers.

That is how you get things done.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#109

Post by artichokeheart »

incongruity wrote: post #95
jemfinch wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent a court-ordered injuction, Apple has no obligation to read, let alone give credence to anyone's claims in this matter, and that's exactly what they should have done: let the courts sort it out. Make PRC get the injuction, don't just give it to them for free.

Exactly this. Apple is, IMHO, in the wrong here because they have acted in advance of a court decision, thereby making themselves the arbiter of a patent claim, not the courts. Actions like this only serve to highlight the dangers with the walled-garden approach... or maybe, better said, by acting in this way, Apple makes the walled-garden of iOS a less attractive environment for developers and reduces the motivation…

Yes Apple is in the wrong but (and possibly I'm giving them too much credit in terms of their corporate unity) maybe their actions are an effort to not weaken the veracity of their own patent claims. Whereby any leniency shown by Apple in the case of other entities patent claims could be used in court against Apple when they are defending their own.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#110

Post by kvnn »

lukeschlather wrote: post #104
kvnn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant what I said more literally than you took it. Apple doesn't obstruct her from using Android. She can choose not to use Apple products. Edit: keep in mind this is what I was replying to: They reserved for themselves the power to obstruct the author's use of her own tools, which should be a human right second only to food and shelter.

Apple doesn't own the product; they sold it to her, and shouldn't obstruct her from using it as she sees fit. Your sentiment seems to imply that no one actually buys anything from Apple, they merely rent, and Apple rightly has the final say over how the renter uses the product. I don't see how the idea that she can simply choose to use another product really makes sense unless she's renting it.

This is a good argument.
Post reply on HN