The Silencing of Maya • Hacker News Board

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#241

Post by swalsh » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:24 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #63

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…

This would all be pertinent if the software patents in question were actually novel inventions worthy of protection. One of the patents is for a "method for dynamically redefining the keys on a keyboard". I mean, come on .

The key is, was that novel when the patent was first filed?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#242

Post by wissler » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:27 PM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #223

wissler wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an agreement where you would refrain from doing so. And you misunderstand patents as well, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that you cannot make an ethical c…

Do you realize that, regardless of how it's abused now, in a world with zero patents no little guy would ever be paid for his idea? Big companies could just see the idea, realize the value and task 100 people with copying it exactly. Further no company would bother with R&D because as soon as they make a breakthrough everyone else will simply steal the idea and sell for pennies more than cost of production. R&D costs…

Men who have minds large enough to envision the kinds of ideas that would deserve a patent (if patents were moral) are precisely the kind who would invent regardless of whether they could get one. See Nicola Tesla or the many scientists throughout history who have achieved great things without having a carrot and a stick. Or see Linus Torvalds.

The kind of men who refuse to engage themselves in creation without being prodded are the kind who patent most of the trivial ideas we see patented today.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#243

Post by wissler » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:32 PM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #149

wissler wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an agreement where you would refrain from doing so. And you misunderstand patents as well, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that you cannot make an ethical c…

There is and can be no ethical principle [..] I wasn't addressing the ethical part of your claim at all, but since you insist: there can be a moral argument in favor of patents. It goes like this: * Corporations are legal entities that are allowed because they were expected to, and have been shown to, advance our average wellbeing * Corporations more effectively increase our average wellbeing if they are encouraged t…

This is horribly embarrassing argument. It's a blatant post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. What's worse is that it ignores the central point: the cost of your system is that individuals who think of an idea that happens to match one that is patented by one of these corporations gets the tar beaten out of him if he tries to use/trade it. You can't justify this violence, you can only try to sweep it under the rug, as you have attempted to do here.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#244

Post by quanticle » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:43 PM UTC

ralfd wrote: post #230

randallsquared wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you think that Apple is immune to injunction, the mere existence of the capability to remove apps from customers' devices is a sort of attractive nuisance. Now, it could be that precedent will be established that removing infringing or other undesirable content or applications from third-party computers is not permissible. Until that precedent exists, though, the risk seems high that precedent will go the othe…

There is precedent. Not in a legal way, but in the judgement of the public. Amazon remote erased an eBook in 2009, ironically "1984", from Kindle devices because the publisher didn't have the copyright and the real copyright holder demanded it from Amazon. It was a PR nightmare! CEO Jeff Bezos had to offer a public apology to mitigate this mistake. I don't expect a big company will make this mistake again. http://sla…

This is already a PR nightmare for Prentke Romich and Semantic Compaction. They've shown that they don't care about public opinion (or at least broader public opinion). They have a duopoly on their (very niche) market and are going to do whatever it takes to defend it. It's absolutely possible that their next legal move will be to ask Apple to proactively remove the app from iPads and to file for an injunction if Apple does not do so voluntarily.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#245

Post by rimantas » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:45 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #172

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…

I would write a punchy call for arms on the topic. The Free Software/Open Source community has been banging this drum for years. Come join us and let us all make the world better.

You mean, worse?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#246

Post by rimantas » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:48 PM UTC

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #211

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…

> 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.

It is not just silly, it's the most stupid suggestion of the year. If you are happy to use half-working, half-baked products, feel free. I will choose those, where software is finely tuned to the hardware and this combination makes pleasurable experience.

"If you are serious about software you should make your own hardware" © Alan Kay.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#247

Post by quanticle » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:51 PM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #131

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.

You misunderstand patents. Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts. The title of a patent is irrelevant, but it is the title that gets the press. Patents do not disallow you to think of certain things and they do not disallow you to share those thoughts. They only disallow you to implement a specific solution to a specific problem…

>Despite what is reported every so often, you cannot patent abstract concepts: only specific ways to execute upon those concepts.

That was true only up until software patents were approved. In software, there is no hard and fast line between concept and execution. Without a physical product, the concept is the execution.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#248

Post by gbog » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:53 PM UTC

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #211

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…

> 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.

If your "implantable pacemaker" records a bunch of vital information about my heart for years, then it is not a simple "implantable pacemaker", it is an information processing device, and the sensitive information it produce and store is my own, and allowing you full control on it is a danger of potential alienation that must be mitigated.

As we do not currently have a better way[1] to ensure there will be no misuse of the power brought to you by controlling the way this information is generated, processed and stored, I would much prefer this heavy responsibility to be split between three different providers (information producer, processor, storage) communicating together according to open formats.

If your pacemaker is a piece of hardware with no sensitive information stored and not connected to the outside world, then I would not consider its "software driver" to be an information processing system (ie "real" software), and there would be no need to split responsibilities in this case. This should also answer to the "micro-wave" objections in other answers. And yes, I change the definition of "software" a little bit, so it do not include single-minded commodities drivers.

Actually, "software" is too wide on one side, and too narrow on another. A big company like Google should be understood as a software company. For me, they do not cross the line if they build their own servers for internal usage. They do cross the line, however, when they buy Motorola. The gray area would be the Nexus line and Chromebooks, which is ok to me if these products can be considered as real-life experiment for new software concepts, but not ok if they become mainstream products sold by the million of unit and if Google installs itself in a long term hardware producing activity, in parallel with its enormous presence as the software gorilla.

[1] In the same sense that "democracy is the worst regime, except for all other"

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#249

Post by artmageddon » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:56 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #245

rmc wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would write a punchy call for arms on the topic. The Free Software/Open Source community has been banging this drum for years. Come join us and let us all make the world better.

You mean, worse?

How would you argue that? Genuinely curious.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#250

Post by wizzard » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:58 PM UTC

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…

I agree. This is a legal issue about 1) patent law, 2) Apple store policies. Whether your kid really needs the app or not is pretty irrelevant. I don't mean to sound heartless, but I think the emotional outpouring weakens the case for what you're hoping to achieve. The way it reads to me is "SfY is probably in the wrong here so I'm not going to defend them, but please just let everyone keep using this infringing software."

My whole take is that a patent for a device that plays a sound when you push a button with a picture on it is a complete joke. Surely there is prior art.