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

211–220 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#211

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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…

> Hardware companies should no be allowed to make or sell or control software.

So if I, as an electrical engineer, design an implantable pacemaker for people with heart problems, they have to visit Joe's Software Shack and Live Bait to make it work?

This is just silly.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#212

Post by flyinRyan »

antihero wrote: post #206
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.

> I'd love to develop apps like this for free

Many of us would, but we don't have time exactly because our houses and food aren't provided for us.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#213

Post by krschultz »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #162
krschultz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Why can't I clone your app? Who said the first person to do anything has the right to it forever?

Isn't Pepsi a clone of Coke? It's not exactly the same recipe, but functionally it's pretty damn close.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#214

Post by singlow »

rmc wrote: post #174
lloeki wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That software is my property. I own it Technically, no. I'm pretty sure that if you cashed for a copy of WordPerfect on Apple II, that software was licensed to you for unlimited time use and you don't own any bit of it.

That depends. Usually, yes the person owns it, in the same way you own a book or a VHS or a DVD. Copyright law prevents you from copying your software/book (Driving licencing law prevents you from driving the car you own without doing a test for example). This "licence" thing is usually a fiction sold to consumers by big companies to try to pull the wool over their eyes.

The license is not a fiction. It grants you powers that you would otherwise not have, only holding the installation media. For example, it grants you the right to make copies of the software - usually one for installation, one for execution and one for backup.

It does not, usually, grant you permission to make additional copies for execution on other computers (without deleting the first one).

Your use of this software is not limited by the license, it is extended. Without a license, installation media for copyrighted software has no legal value.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#215

Post by jmilloy »

Wow, how could the PRC products really need to cost $8000? It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that sfy is infringing. In our copyright system, unfortunately you have to pay or you have to wait for it to expire for cheaper options. However, it wasn't worth it to me, as part of the Public, to give PRC exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're going to sell them for that price.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#216

Post by keithpeter »

femto wrote: post #34

What's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could not duplicate? It seems like a list of icons, and when you touch an icon a word is spoken. There is a facility to add new icons. The application also seems to permanently fix the location of each "learned" icon, so that as the child grows their vocabulary consists of an expanding set of "muscle memory" movements. There is also a facility t…

"What's so special about this application that a concerted week of coding could not duplicate?"

I wondered about that, although I am not a programmer. Thanks for the pictogram reference!

Please base the project outside the US, and build it for Android/Linux!

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#217

Post by Karunamon »

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…

>and it can be taken away

Except this has never, ever been done to anything but malware. Not even apps that flagrantly and blatantly violated the store rules and got taken down are removed from end user devices. Not even apps which were pulled down for patent or copyright infringement.

It isn't going to happen.

Until such time as the killswitch is abused, this remains a slippery slope argument with no basis in reality.

If you're worried about your apps, back up the IPA's. You kept your //e floppies around somewhere, didn't you? Is the problem that once apps are removed from the appstore, you can't redownload them? Can you buy Oregon Trail for the original Apple 2 officially anymore?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#218

Post by keithpeter »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #56

I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings to push forward your philosophy/belie…

"But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. "

A child is using an assistive technology, but may face its loss at a cognitively critical time in her intellectual and social development.

How is that not a 'real issue'?

Perhaps my definition of a 'real issue' is different from yours.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#219

Post by gbog »

jopt wrote: post #200
gbog wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I think information is power mostly because you do not have the choice. Only few exceptions can live a life with no relation to information processing machines.

However I would agree that the limit between hardware and software is yet to be defined, maybe using new names. I guess it was the same when defining political power separation.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#220

Post by keithpeter »

wazoox wrote: post #140

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.

"...we rely more and more on computerized gadgets running programs for most of our activities..."

I have concerns about that trend, but this particular case shows how an application running on a device can expand what can be done to integrate a disabled person into society.

Not just a shiny way of doing something we did before, but a real gain.

Stallman's was a name that I thought of as soon as I read the article.

Post reply on HN