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

161–170 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#161

Post by noonespecial »

creamyhorror wrote: post #147
kvnn wrote: post #40

The following is from PRC's Facebook page [1]. Most of it is in defense of their lawsuit, while the last paragraph is in defense of their request to remove the app from the Apple store. Last week Prentke Romich Company (PRC) learned that Apple removed a language assistance app from its iTunes® store pending the outcome of a patent infringement lawsuit filed against the company that developed the iPad® app. PRC and th…

>>> There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. This appears to be the crux of it: is the technology that SfY 'copied' actually the direct results of decades of effort, or could it have been created by a few designers and developers looking at the problem of assisting disabled child…

The problem is that software is such an odd field that one man's "life's work" can easily be another's "weekend project".

Whenever I start feeling a bit full of myself after battling a week or so on some particularly difficult problem, I try to remember that there are people out there who could kick my ass in the time it takes to air an episode of The Simpsons.

In the end, this is why the whole notion of "software" patents is probably doomed from the start.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#162

Post by pooriaazimi »

krschultz wrote: post #18
ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

Ok, I've read it twice. I'm not sure I understand the argument. It reads like the argument is "This technology helps handicapped people so you shouldn't allow it to be patented." Is that a reasonable argument? PRC seems to have a valid patent, they sell a device the people in the article could use, Speak For Yourself infringed without a license and they are the good guys why? The patent argument would go, "PRC figure…

So you think it's good practice for Apple to pull apps based simply on an accusation of patent infringement by a competitor? Yes, it's Apple's playground. But that doesn't mean they won't receive bad PR, lost sales, and a public backlash based on a boneheaded policy.

In this case? Probably no. Generally? Yes.

You clone my app (that I've spent months creating) and sell it for 0.99 instead on 2.99. Now, I'm not rich and can't afford a lawyer or a lengthy lawsuit; it would ruin me. I want your app removed from the store NOW, and the manager of the store MUST have the right to judge what is right or wrong without a court order (that could take months and ruin businesses).

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#163

Post by adrianN »

gbog wrote: post #160
jkn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is a weak workaround. There real solution is to fully recognize that information is power, and to have a separation of powers similar to the three powers of Montesquieu's. Hardware companies should no be allowed to make or sell or control software. Software companies should not be allowed to produce, sell or control hardware. The same way we, user, citizen, forbade our physicians to sell us the drug they prescri…

Where does hardware end where does software start? Is the code in your BIOS still hardware? How about the driver for your graphics card? Is it still hardware if the processor only executes code signed by its manufacturer?

Forbidding hardware companies like Apple to sell software is not sufficient to prevent them from only running things they approve. And besides, a law like that would likely cripple a large part of the industry and stifle innovation.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#164

Post by astrodust »

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…

They're two different worlds. On one hand you have an App Store where an infinite number of copies of an application can be legally obtained even when it'd be impractical or impossible to make physical copies. This enables individuals to produce apps used by millions. How many people were able to pull of what the founders of Sierra and Elecronic Arts did back when they had to hand-copy floppies and find distribution in sparsely scattered retail stores? Then it was exceptional. Today it's almost routine.

On the down-side you have the rather transient nature of the platform where bit-rot happens much faster. Theoretically you can keep your iPad in its frozen state in perpetuity, backed up and re-imaged onto a replacement device if necessary. If you start upgrading, the half-life of applications kicks in and you're going to start losing some of them over time.

It's not clear which is better in the end.

The solution to this software problem could be to make an open-source version or one that side-steps the patents, whatever those are, as cleverly as possible. Then it can be distributed, instantly, to those who want or need it.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#165

Post by justin_vanw »

If someone makes a false or unfounded claim, and it causes harm to another person (not least of which a disabled 4 year old) can't you sue the person making a false claim?

If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue. This sort of thing only comes up because we have given a corporation the power to revoke access to software. In iOS there is no opportunity to install 'unsigned' software.

This situation also makes RMS's claims much more reasonable. Since this is not open software, it takes away the ability to ensure proper functioning of it upon some arbitrary future iOS update. If this were open software running on an open OS, any corporation, misguided or oppressive government, or judge would find it impossible to deprive people of the use of it, in perpetuity.

The two things that I'll be doing in response to this:

- selling my devices that use iOS. I've always felt uncomfortable giving up control, and I am starting to think it is morally iffy to contribute to a system that allows things like Maya being removed from the Appstore. Voluntarily giving rights, by using a system that requires giving a corporation the power to whitelist all software, seems short sighted, and this story brings it into sharp contrast. Luckily I won't have to return to the dark ages, I can just switch to Android (which is a GPL system that allows me to find alternate sources of software, and use unsigned software if I want).

- not buy the new retina macbook pro. I think I will become even more of a curmudgeon and just use Linux. I've been using Linux for around 5 years, but I almost always have a Macbook Pro as well, because Linux has rough edges. This sort of story reminds me that the more I am reliant on non-open software, the more I give the power to other people. If TextMate stops updating (oh, wait), or OSX goes the way of previous non-Jobs Apple products and becomes an untenable product, the more uncomfortable it will be for me. Since I make my living as a programmer, if I lose access to the tools I use, or they become crap, it is a serious concern to me. Perhaps Linux has some rough edges, but I can rely on it being there as long as it is useful for it to be there. I know Emacs will be available to me.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#166

Post by Porter_423 »

This is absolutely unconscionable. I hope to God that people read this and comprehend how devastating this could be, if pulled from Maya, and other children who rely on this as their (near) sole means of communication. I will share this info profusely! I wish you the best in your endeavors to keep this app alive!

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#167

Post by astrodust »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #60
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…

Apple's needlessly abusive design is the sole reason you don't have that choice. 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.

I guess Apple should keep it in the store and take one on the chin when they get sued for millions of dollars by the patent holders. It's not like they have anything better to do.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#168

Post by bborud »

Patents reward the wrong thing. They reward having the idea rather than realizing it. With regard to maximizing value for humanity this is exactly the wrong way around.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#169

Post by pooriaazimi »

Karunamon wrote: post #16
pasbesoin wrote: post #9

Where's Jobs when you need him?

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

I don't want to be impolite or start a personal attack, but if you really don't consider what he did philanthropic, then you must re-consider your definition of this word.

He wasn't the only on, but was one of those guys who created this device that's giving this child a voice in the first place. You don't have to give huge chunks of money to charitable causes to be a philanthropic, you can use that money to build a company that makes people's lives better. Not that donating money is bad, just that there are different kinds of philanthropy. Jobs could've retired when he was 24 - he had about 400 million dollars then. But he tried to create a better company and lost almost all of it, and only years later regained his old wealth (in 2000+ he got I think hundreds of million of AAPL shares, and some years later got 7B selling Pixar to Disney).

He spent years and years of his life (yeas he could've enjoyed in Hawaii) building this very device; so, it's really unfair to not credit him for what he always aspired: changing the world (a little) and making a (small) dent in the universe.

And just to be clear: I'm not against capitalism. As much as it looks bad and IS bad, without capitalists we would have less progress in the world. As much as I love communism and socialism, they don't work really well in the real world (due to human nature, that's un-alterable).

So, don't judge entrepreneurs too harshly for not giving away their money.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#170

Post by pjmlp »

This are very sad news and I will surely add an entry about this to my blog.

The only way to stop this type of abusive behavior is to stop giving money to companies like Apple.

Don't like their dictatorship behavior?

Instead of buying stuff and then complaining it does not work, or jailbreaking, don't give them any money, not even a penny.

Post reply on HN