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

201–210 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#201

Post by jeffool »

vidarh wrote: post #184
jeffool wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires. No they're not. You misunderstand; the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. The original drug does not go into any public domain to be manufactured or built on by other companies. Many drug manufacturers make generic drugs, but that number has decreased, which has led to behavior like the larger original drug manu…

> the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. Really? I can find no indication that US patent law allows for extension of patents at all except as a result of delays caused by the USPTO or regulatory delays (e.g. reviews by the FDA). Everything I've seen about evergreening has been tied to filing new patents covering things like delivery systems to make it harder to produce a generic that doesn't infringe, and…

You're right, I'm wrong! There is indeed a notable difference between ACTUALLY extending, and "de facto" extending of a patent, by patenting a slightly different aspect of the same drug, such as delivery, or changing a trivial aspect like color or labeling and re-patenting the same drug. One is a use of a bad system, one is misuse of a system.

Thank you for pointing out what I wasn't able to push through my thick skull!

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#202

Post by NLips »

SeanLuke wrote: post #74
ef4 wrote: post #52

The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. America industrialized faster than Great Britain thanks to widespread copying -- and this saved countless human lives by lifting millions of people out of poverty faster than otherwise possible. Today China is industrializing f…

> The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. This completely misunderstands the historical reason for patents. Patents do not stifle copying: they encourage copying by transforming a permanent monopoly of secrets into a temporary monopoly of open information. Patents we…

There is a particular issue with software though. A software patent for the one-click-buy is more like a patent for explosive powder, rather than the exact composition of gunpowder. It is more like a drug to reduce brain swelling, which would not be patentable because the implementation is not obvious. With software, there are many ways to implement the same feature, so you can implement something in an entirely novel way and yet infringe a patent.

Patenting the workings of an internal combustion engine is one thing, patenting a horseless carriage is another.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#203

Post by jopt »

gbog wrote: post #183
adrianN wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I am sure there have been many objections against separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, also in the name of efficiency. > a law like that I don't see it as a law. I think it should be to the constitutional level. Laws, if necessary, would get into details on how to enforce the constitution, and these details may vary with place and time. > would likely cripple a large part of the industry and sti…

Apple aren't legally preventing you from running anything. If you're clever enough to do it, go nuts. If you think they're making it too hard, tough luck. Their products aren't built to spec; you're not entitled to a product that works any differently than the one they sold you.

If you buy a microwave and you want to run custom software on it, that is your problem, not the microwave manufacturers.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#204

Post by NLips »

jfasi wrote: post #108

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 d…

PRC's product isn't as good for this family as the software they currently use.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#205

Post by jopt »

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.

Nobody is entitled to earn anything. Perhaps your great idea can't make money without a special legal monopoly, but that is not in itself a reason for the legal monopoly to exist. Being creative is not a license to get rich off your ideas.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#206

Post by antihero »

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…

> someone's got to pay

I don't believe that. The app has been made, the app has been purchased, and it's not taking away from PRC's sales because PRC's devices are not an option.

I also dislike this culture in that everything has to have monetary value. If my house and food was provided for me, I'd love to develop apps like this for free, because in life, helping others is far more important than material gain.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#207

Post by flyinRyan »

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…

> I'm licensing it, and it can be taken away, or I can be forced into "updates" that may change it in ways I don't want.

So, iOS apps are like web apps then?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#209

Post by nathan_long »

jopt wrote: post #203
gbog wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure there have been many objections against separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, also in the name of efficiency. > a law like that I don't see it as a law. I think it should be to the constitutional level. Laws, if necessary, would get into details on how to enforce the constitution, and these details may vary with place and time. > would likely cripple a large part of the industry and sti…

Apple aren't legally preventing you from running anything. If you're clever enough to do it, go nuts. If you think they're making it too hard, tough luck. Their products aren't built to spec; you're not entitled to a product that works any differently than the one they sold you. If you buy a microwave and you want to run custom software on it, that is your problem, not the microwave manufacturers.

>> you're not entitled to a product that works any differently than the one they sold you.

Right, because you knew what you were buying. However:

>> Apple aren't legally preventing you from running anything.

They tried to, though.

>> Apple's request to define copyright law to include jailbreaking as a violation was denied as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_...

There's a big difference between "we're not going to help you do X with your purchased item" and "we legally forbid doing X with your purchased item."

The only thing keeping companies like Apple from doing this is our insistence that they don't.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#210

Post by LinXitoW »

jopt wrote: post #203
gbog wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure there have been many objections against separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, also in the name of efficiency. > a law like that I don't see it as a law. I think it should be to the constitutional level. Laws, if necessary, would get into details on how to enforce the constitution, and these details may vary with place and time. > would likely cripple a large part of the industry and sti…

Apple aren't legally preventing you from running anything. If you're clever enough to do it, go nuts. If you think they're making it too hard, tough luck. Their products aren't built to spec; you're not entitled to a product that works any differently than the one they sold you. If you buy a microwave and you want to run custom software on it, that is your problem, not the microwave manufacturers.

I take it you're fine with UEFI Secure Boot, then?
Post reply on HN