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

191–200 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#191

Post by PGenes »

gaius wrote: post #187
omegaworks wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really blaming the technology here? You're neglecting the reality: that a person--a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. Connected computing is the inevitable future. We will always hold less physical computing capability in our hands then can be beamed to us from afar on-demand. What is ridiculous is the systems--the people systems--we have built that foste…

a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. A living, breathing, thinking person also did the research that this technology is based on, possibly risking their own capital (livelihood) to do so. Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

This is what I don't get about the patent system. It should not be about denying others access, but ensuring that those who use the patent pay their dues to the originator. Then nobody but the greedy loses.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#192

Post by Jacqued »

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…

"This technology helps handicapped people so you shouldn't allow it to be patented."

To me you would just need to remove a few words : "technology shouldn't be patented".

At the very worst, patents should be allowed to last for 6 to 12 months, not 10 years.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#193

Post by PGenes »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #69
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…

"or it's taxpayers through some form of state-sponsored licensing" Why do you say taxpayers must pay the license fee? A company might be happy to pay a royalty on a patent but as it is now patent law allows a patent holder to prevent anyone from making or using a patented invention - in other words they could sue Maya directly for infringement. Music copyright law, which issues from the exact same clause in the const…

Exactly, this is the way to go.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#194

Post by brazzy »

LinXitoW wrote: post #150
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.

I'm not sure anyone would ever claim that patents are morally justified. Their justification is cultural, in a sense. They are there that invention is worth it. Invention and innovation, in turn, bring about advances for the entire culture that has surrendered these specific rights, because it sees more value in progress than in the rights that are given up for it. I don't know whether a culture without patents would…

There is a second justification for patents that often gets overlooked: in order to patent an innovation, you have to exactly describe that innovation, and this discription is made public, and after the patent expires everyone is free to use it.

Without this, there would be a strong incentive to keep innovations secret as much as possible, which may have them end up being lost.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#195

Post by HolyHaddock »

gaius wrote: post #187
omegaworks wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really blaming the technology here? You're neglecting the reality: that a person--a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. Connected computing is the inevitable future. We will always hold less physical computing capability in our hands then can be beamed to us from afar on-demand. What is ridiculous is the systems--the people systems--we have built that foste…

a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access. A living, breathing, thinking person also did the research that this technology is based on, possibly risking their own capital (livelihood) to do so. Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets? Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

> Are they not entitled to earn anything? Should all researchers be starving artists in garrets?

Do you mean the creators of SfY, who seem to claim to have done at least some of the research that went into it themselves, or do you discount their effort and risk merely because another company accused them of infringing a software patent?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#196

Post by fadzlan »

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…

Even without the "app store" model, the company in question could still prevent the access to the said application by court injunction. It is not to the stage yet now, and while you can say that Apple acted prematurely, it is a matter of time that such injunction happen.

And with the App Store model, the application is took down from the store. You still have the local copy. There is no updates from the App Store anymore, but do you think there will be updates from the developer when the court injunction finally happens?

Bad laws need to be fixed.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#197

Post by adaml_623 »

artichokeheart wrote: post #109
incongruity wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple has done it because they are getting 30% of the sale fee from software that is potentially infringing someone's patent. They could be sued for that quite easily if the makers of SfY went bankrupt. It's a no brainer for a corporate heirarchy to choose to pull it from the store. Doesn't make it ethically squeaky clean.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#198

Post by pooriaazimi »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #176

Another solution if they're afraid they might lose the ability to use the app if Apple pulls removes the app remotely (which it has NEVER done): Pay $190 to SfY (via credit card), ask them to give you a provisioning profile for beta testing, install it on your iPad, download updates with TestFlight ( https://testflightapp.com ) or manually. Problem (partially solved! It sucks, but at least they don't have to fear the…

Or better yet: Sign up for Apple Developer Program (100% per year), get a private key for signing apps, get the BINARY from SfY, sign it with your key (using iReSign or InstaSign) and profit. Of course if they go out of business (because of lawsuit), it wouldn't work. But then it's not an Apple problem anymore and SfY couldn't create a similar app for Android too, and they're really screwed this time.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#199

Post by Jtsummers »

LinXitoW wrote: post #152
Jtsummers wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had a monopoly, >95% market share at the time of the anti-trust suit. They deliberately blocked other OSes from manufacturers' PCs (BeOS, for instance, from Compaq's lineup). Apple may have the largest single share, but they are not in a monopoly position.

Well, iOS is also the only OS to run on iDevices. You can't switch to Android on your iPhone, you need to get a new phone altogether, just like you would've had to get a new Mac, instead of just installing another(BeOS) OS.

Actually, BeOS ran on macs. But the point remains, Apple is not in the market position to force out OS competition. They're in a position to make Their consumer device run their OS more easily than an alternate OS. They don't prevent anyone else from launching Android or Windows mobile devices, and they aren't in a position to. Their strongest anti-consumer position is the app store (in the sense that there is a gateway preventing consumer choice), but if you really care you can get around it by jail breaking, or just leave the platform. And if developers cared about their position, they should flood the android market with the apps needed to drive consumers away from iOS.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#200

Post by jopt »

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…

Separation of power, like Democracy and other such ideas, don't necessarily belong in every system. Politics/government is not an optional system; everyone has to take part (whether they want to or not.)

Consumer technology is not enforced by police and armies, and should be free from the demands we may rightly have on our state.

Besides, how would you like to buy a hardware-only car? What about a fridge or a plane without the code that makes it work? The hardware/software dichotomy is only an abstraction---the instruction set of a processor is software, but the hardware must be designed around it.

Post reply on HN