The Silencing of Maya • Hacker News Board

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#231

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

adaml_623 wrote: post #197

artichokeheart wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#232

Post by regularfry » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 2:12 PM UTC

jan_g wrote: post #158

regularfry wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourth part is where Apple are acting in place of the judiciary. Taking the article at its word, Apple have taken and enforced a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with respect to their own suppliers and customers. Ignoring for a moment how bizarrely arrogant that is, there's a very good reason we rely on independent judges and juries to get these questions right.

Yes, the same approach is taken for example by Facebook. If there's a complaint, Facebook will first freeze an account and only unfreeze it after the dispute is resolved (by the parties themselves or legally through court). Shoot-first-ask-later approach. I don't know why this is prevalent approach, since 90% of the time it's the big companies initiating disputes. So small companies are taking the hit.

My guess is that it's laywers being paranoid. If Apple didn't stop the app from being distributed when they were notified of a problem and a court later upheld the complaint, they might be sued for contributory infringement, or whatever the relevant patent term is.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#233

Post by anamax » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 2:18 PM UTC

jeffool wrote: post #141

anamax wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>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…

> some pharma businesses like GSK, spend about twice on sales and business costs than they do research[0].

Marketing and sales costs include free and discounted drugs for poor people. It also includes costs for educating doctors?

You clearly think that too much spending on things other than research is wrong. So, how much spending on the things that I listed (which comes under the categories that you complained about) is too much?

Now that you understand more about how patents work, my question about generics still stands. Pfizer wants you to buy new improved lipitor but there's no patent protection on old lipitor. Pfizer's lipitor sales just dropped 71% and (IIRC), they're dropping prices.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#234

Post by ralfd » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

justin_vanw wrote: post #165

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 sit…

> If this were shrink wrapped software, you wouldn't have this issue.

No. Think about it this way: Removing the App from the App store is like a brick&mortar store removing the shrink wrapped software from it's shelves and not selling it anymore.

If you lose your CD you can't buy it again. But you can still use your copy. The same with an App: As long as you don't delete the App yourself it doesn't magically vanish. Furthermore you can back it up to your computer, you can copy the App to external disks or put a copy on Dropbox or whatever.

> The two things that I'll be doing in response to this: a) selling my devices that use iOS. b) not buy the new retina macbook pro.

Really? Since when did get hacker news so stupid? This news article, some third party company has a patent and brings action against another third party company, is so disconnected from a Macbook Pro or iOS that I wonder if I am insane or the rest of the world is.

> 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.

I am also puzzled what the constant pleas for open source in this and other comments want to accomplish. The software by "Speak for Yourself" which gave the disabled 4 year old girl its speech back? Guess what. It is closed-source and non-open software which was sold on the App Store for $299 (sic. Two hundred ninety-nine dollars). I find it hypocritical to only accuse Apple now, but not give them at least equal credit that they enabled with their evil closed garden the ecosystem, that SfY was able to sell their product for a high price in the first place (instead of being pirated out of business).

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#235

Post by Tomis02 » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 2:46 PM UTC

taligent wrote: post #81

Karunamon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He was a philanthropist. He just did so privately. Many anonymous, large donations have been attributed to him.

http://swaaanson.tumblr.com/post/25005539624/kindle-notes-in...

CTRL+F philanthropic

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#236

Post by OlivierLi » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:01 PM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #218

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.

It is a real issue. A human and personal issue.

But it is not a systemic issue that represents the state of patent law.

If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. It would still not be a call to arms to change legislation.

Appeal to emotion is wrong in an adult debate.

I feel very bad for the mother and I wish her and her daughter the best. But if the story was about a guy who lost his fortune to copycats and thus can't feed his handicapped daughter, it would be equally as sad and equally as manipulative from my point of view.

That said I do believe the patent system needs a massive reform. I just appreciate honest and fair debates.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#237

Post by Tomis02 » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:03 PM UTC

pooriaazimi wrote: post #169

Karunamon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wrong. By your rationale every person in charge of a business is a philanthropist because they make other people's lives better. Like, let's say, British Petroleum, Bank of America, Electronic Arts, Blackwater, Heckler & Koch, people baking bread, and so on.

They are still a business, and they still make money. When they return some of the money they earned back to society without expecting them back, THEN you can call them philanthropic. That's how it works.

Don't try to rewrite the definition of a word just to fit your nice picture of the world, and please don't give us this upside down logic of "oh I'm such a philanthropist because I allow you to buy my products". Sorry, Jobs was not philanthropic. We are not inside the church of Apple so you'll have to deal with it.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#238

Post by primitur » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:04 PM UTC

jkn wrote: post #139

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…

>Apple has been a leader in this industry shift.

Actually, Apple has been a follower.

Ubuntu and the Linux world in general has had app-stores long before Apple came to the party.

The Apple app-store is nothing more than a Sony'fied software repository.

Where Apple have succeeded while "The Linux scene" has floundered is, Apple have put the app-store, physically, in peoples pockets. Sony/Sharp could have done it sooner, if they'd made better hardware and been cohesive with their late-90's/early 21st-century Linux/e-Tron strategies, but make no mistake, Apple are a newcomer to the vendor-supplied online software repository scene. Albeit, a very powerful, sexy, one.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#239

Post by ralfd » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:05 PM UTC

zdw wrote: post #11

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…

The problem is that putting patents and similar legal steps exclusive ownership of ideas in place doesn't guarantee that they'll be used in the best ways. Personally I think that patents and similar should be treated as property, and licensing should be required. The patent owner sets the price and it's taxed yearly based upon that price, whether products are made or not. This is similar to how real estate taxes are…

A more sensible idea would be to just disallow software patents and patents on business methods. Like in the European Union.

Not patentable are:

"discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

aesthetic creations;

schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

presentations of information."

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#240

Post by lukeschlather » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:22 PM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #224

lukeschlather wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't own the product; they sold it to her, and shouldn't obstruct her from using it as she sees fit. Your sentiment seems to imply that no one actually buys anything from Apple, they merely rent, and Apple rightly has the final say over how the renter uses the product. I don't see how the idea that she can simply choose to use another product really makes sense unless she's renting it.

Someone probably sold you a microwave. How easy is it to install Linux on it? They haven't provided you a way to and may have even erected barriers to stop you from doing so. Wouldn't that put any and all embedded device/"appliance" manufacturer in the same boat? As far as I know, Apple doesn't want people to think of the iPad as a "computer" but as a device or appliance.

I'm a vegetarian; I see what Apple has done as more akin to selling a microwave that detects when there's meat in it and refuses to power on. Sorry, it's not a microwave, it's a vegetable cooker.