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

131–140 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#131

Post by Confusion »

wissler wrote: post #107
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.

You misunderstand patents. Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts. The title of a patent is irrelevant, but it is the title that gets the press.

Patents do not disallow you to think of certain things and they do not disallow you to share those thoughts. They only disallow you to implement a specific solution to a specific problem, for a specific period of time. Patents get struck down for being too broad.

If having to be struck down is the problem, then look at the justice system, not the patent system.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#132

Post by risratorn »

aiscott wrote: post #129
bobwaycott wrote: post #128

I could be missing something here, and I certainly do not mean to negate the importance this family feels by "hearing" their daughter speak or the indisputable harshness experienced as a result of a patent dispute. I know I would certainly feel the same way if one of my sons had this problem. However, despite the convenience and awesomeness of being able to do this on an iPad, is there anything preventing the girl (a…

Well, you did come across as a dick. Go read the whole article this time, and look at the picture of their kid at the end. I think your post was longer than the article. That makes you a dick and an imbecile.

Well call me a dick too then. I can totally sympathize with the parents and how they feel when something like this happens to your family but to be honest, if PRC has a rightfull claim to a patent infringement it's their right to protect their intellectual property, and it's not that there aren't any other apps that might facilitate maya to express herself. Maybe not in the exact same way as SfY does but there are other excellent options, even on iOS. Even pen and paper would do if they were taught. I've even seen kids run about with a bunch of indexcards to communicate in a similar way.

I personally feel like they are more afraid of change (which is a legitimate fear) than they are fearing for their daughter to become unable to express herself, which isn't legitimate in my opinion. There is a thick layer of drama over it that some of us fail to see through.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#133

Post by zem »

gommm wrote: post #79

Looking at this and the video of her using it, I can't help wondering if Maya and her parents wouldn't be better served learning ASL. ASL is much richer, faster to actually use and doesn't depend on an external app... Regardless of this, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with Apple's practices when it comes to their App store. Legally, as far as I know, they only need to act on a court order to remove the app an…

the time to get uncomfortable with apple's practices was when they decided that if i developed an app, and you bought an ipad, the only way for me to get my app onto your ipad was through an app store that they controlled, and then only if they gave us permission. anything after that is just scum floating on the underlying pool of sewage.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#134

Post by anamax »

jeffool wrote: post #116
sirclueless wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine. Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.

> Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine.

So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires.

If some companies are unwilling to make drugs unless there's some sort of monopoly, what does that tell you about what they'll do if there's no way to get a monopoly?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#135

Post by bobwaycott »

aiscott wrote: post #129
bobwaycott wrote: post #128

I could be missing something here, and I certainly do not mean to negate the importance this family feels by "hearing" their daughter speak or the indisputable harshness experienced as a result of a patent dispute. I know I would certainly feel the same way if one of my sons had this problem. However, despite the convenience and awesomeness of being able to do this on an iPad, is there anything preventing the girl (a…

Well, you did come across as a dick. Go read the whole article this time, and look at the picture of their kid at the end. I think your post was longer than the article. That makes you a dick and an imbecile.

Thank you.

I read the entire article (and its comments). Twice. And then I read through nearly a dozen other pages on the blog to learn more about Maya, her condition, and everything the parents have tried in communicating with their daughter--because the author's statements stood out to me and I wanted to see if they'd tried other things, or if there was something about her condition that made ASL or other methods non-starters.

Look at the picture? Cos that means exactly what? Nothing. The child's physical appearance has no bearing on either the content and meaning of the article or my comments.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#136

Post by wissler »

Confusion wrote: post #131
wissler wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misunderstand patents. Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts. The title of a patent is irrelevant, but it is the title that gets the press. Patents do not disallow you to think of certain things and they do not disallow you to share those thoughts. They only disallow you to implement a specific solution to a specific problem…

No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an agreement where you would refrain from doing so.

And you misunderstand patents as well, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that you cannot make an ethical case for patents, on the contrary, they are a gross usurpation of a human being's right to create and trade. This is obvious to anyone who ignores the propaganda they were taught in high school.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#137

Post by masklinn »

jemfinch wrote: post #50
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…

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.

They don't have any obligation to do so, but in most case you'll probably want them to: you built an application on your own, over 6 months of your life, and a guy cracked, replicated and uploaded it. Surely you'll want his app thrown out even without having to go through court won't you?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#138

Post by [deleted] »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #127

The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model. I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them. That software is my property. I own it, and I…

[deleted]

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#139

Post by jkn »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #127

The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. It's the death of physical media and the rise of the "app store" model. I have programs for my Apple //e computer that are over 30 years old. Most of the companies that made the software have long since disappeared, and the computer hasn't been supported since the '80s, but I can still use them. That software is my property. I own it, and I…

It is a bit easy on Apple to blame not them but the "app store" model they created for their devices and control completely. Apple has been a leader in this industry shift.

Also it is not a question of physical media vs. downloaded software. Even physical media software now routinely call home to check for a valid license. So I suppose it is indeed legislation that we need, to prevent companies from revoking licenses.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#140

Post by wazoox »

And once again, the "crazy" views of the "fanatic" Richard Stallman ring truer than ever. Now that we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running programs for most of our activities, the sheer importance of Free Software running on Free Computers becomes more obvious, because it's becoming literally a matter of life and death.
Post reply on HN