The Silencing of Maya • Hacker News Board

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#251

Post by rwallace » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:05 PM UTC

billpatrianakos wrote: post #96

kvnn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, take a look at this quote: The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store. If PRC was able to prove that to Apple, you hadn't read the OP but PRC had posted something about how people they trained stole their technology, wou…

It is important to keep a cool head and consider things objectively. That's why I think it's manipulative to inject emotion into this like the post does. It's one thing to empathize with this poor mother and quite another to consider the facts and have an honest, serious discussion. What has happened to this family is awful. There's no question about that and I feel just as bad for them as anyone. But now we can't ex…

Emotion is not an inherently bad thing. It has a bad name among us geeks because it sometimes creeps into purely technical discussions where it has no place, to be sure. But when an unjust law is used to perpetrate evil - and make no mistake, that's what's happening here - the emotion of anger is entirely justified and appropriate.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#252

Post by cabalamat » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

In the information age, if you want to live a full life, then consumer technology is no more optional than government and politics.

This is not to say that there should be a strict separation of hardware and software. But it is an interesting idea.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#253

Post by fsniper » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

sdoering wrote: post #146

fsniper wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the way Apple constructs it's walled garden approach. Apple is the sole judge of what will be on shelves and what won't. I would discourage anyone to sell apps on Apple AppStore.

I do agree with you. But having read a lot on HN, I have the feeling, that a lot of people do stomp on apple, when apple removes an app. But on the other hand, a lot of developers (oftentimes the same people that cry out when an app is removed) are happy to put apps on the shelves of this walled garden, trying to make a (fast) buck. When I started reading these arguments and outcries against apple, I really felt with…

Ah but this will never ever happen as we all know. Apple has a great influence over consumers. I really try hard to rationalize this but I can't.

Using non-standard ports, having walled-garden approach, over-pricing, being over-arrogant, denying users the simplest rights as to install what ever they like. These must be enough reason for sane-people to stay away from Apple, but on the contrary they encourage people to be more connected to.

I can't understand humans.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#254

Post by rwallace » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

OlivierLi wrote: post #236

keithpeter wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 w…

> 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.

No, it would not. In that scenario, her parents would have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her another iPad. The closest parallel would be a law that forbade her from using any portable computing device regardless of where it came from. And yes, that would be a call to arms to change legislation. Appeal to emotion is wrong in a technical debate. It is not automatically wrong in a moral debate. Emotion is where our sense of morals - of which the law is supposed to be an implementation - comes from in the first place.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#255

Post by rimantas » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:27 PM UTC

artmageddon wrote: post #249

rimantas wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, worse?

How would you argue that? Genuinely curious.

Can you tell me the case where separating hardware from software created superior product? Anyway, I am too tired to argue with FOSS extremists touting their imaginary world with imaginary benefits and solutions for imaginary threats for imaginary users. "Users" ir the key word there. Majority of the people using software are just users, not programmers. We are not all butchers, bakers, and car mechanics. We don't have problems some imagine we have.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#256

Post by paulhauggis » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:30 PM UTC

jopt wrote: post #205

gaius wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder what all of the pro-union people here on HN have to say about this. Unions are, in essence, a special monopoly in certain industries that entitles people to a certain wage.

In some industries (like the auto industry), a job that normally should pay a little above minimum wage is inflated to many more times this.

"Being creative is not a license to get rich off your ideas."

When copyrights and patents are finally gone, I hope I have money. Why? I will have the resources to cherry pick up-and-coming inventors that don't have the same resources as I do.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#257

Post by acqq » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

I remember reading this in 1997:

Richard Stallman: The Right to Read

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Then, most of what we already live now was only a science fiction. There were no chips that can prevent you from installing your own kernel. Well they are going to be sold soon, together with Windows 8:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Int...

"In December 2011, Microsoft released a document about hardware certification of OEM products, Windows Hardware Certification Requirements[57] which confirms that they intend to ban the possibility of installing alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices running Windows 8. The document insists that they will require x86 and x86-64 devices to have the Secure UEFI enabled. They allow for the possibility that a custom secure boot mode could be enabled providing to the user the ability to add signatures. However, they intend that going to custom secure boot mode or disabling secure boot mode on ARM devices will not be compatible with running Windows.[53 "Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices - SFLC Blog - Software Freedom Law Center". Softwarefreedom.org. 2012-01-12. Retrieved 2012-03-06."

There's already a hardware in production that will make impossible installing something else on the device, even if you have an access to the debugger -- on the technical level even a step beyond of the Stallman's dystopia of 1997.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#258

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:45 PM UTC

surrealize wrote: post #64

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…

> 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 question of whether or not they've infringed is currently being litigated, so it's premature for you to say "Speak For Yourself infringed". And, therefore, it's premature for Apple to have removed the app. Does this mean you can take any app off…

This has a come up a couple of times, but I'll bring it up specificially:

"... the action they took hurts people. "

Yes and no. So my experience has been with VLC and App in the app store where the question of its 'open sourceness' came up and Apple removed it from the App store. I have it, I got it when it was there, and its still on my iPad, sync after sync, upgrade after upgrade, even from one device to another. It didn't go away and Apple didn't 'forward delete' it from my device. I suppose they could but they did not. Its not clear at all that they have made any move to delete anyone's SfY app either, they removed it and new users can't down load it, and the SfY gals get no revenue because it isn't being sold. So it hurts people who don't yet have it, and it hurts the SfY folks who might need that revenue to pursue their legal case, but it won't 'silence' Maya if here parents back up her iPad AFAICT. None of the articles linked mention that Maya's version of the App is in danger of being deleted, and it shouldn't be. Even if you buy a patent infringing device, the manufacturer can be banned from selling them but they cannot be forced to take yours back and destroy it.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#259

Post by masklinn » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:49 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #227

masklinn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have any obligation to do so, but in most case you'll probably want them to: you built an application on your own, over 6 months of your life, and a guy cracked, replicated and uploaded it. Surely you'll want his app thrown out even without having to go through court won't you?

"cracked" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? The engineers used their knowledge on speech-synthesizers to make a similar app. Just like an Airport engineer leaving Apple to build wi-fi devices, or an iPod engineer using his knowledge of hardware and interfaces to build modern thermostats. Hmmm...

> "cracked" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

It's not a stretch of anything because it's not in any way, shape or form a qualifier for the case at hand but an example used in making the case for "gatekeepers" acting without court orders if they believe that is for the best of their keep.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#260

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #189

risratorn wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well call me a dick too then. I can totally sympathize with the parents and how they feel when something like this happens to your family but to be honest, if PRC has a rightfull claim to a patent infringement it's their right to protect their intellectual property, and it's not that there aren't any other apps that might facilitate maya to express herself. Maybe not in the exact same way as SfY does but there are ot…

Did you read the article? The part that expressly points out they've tried a number of other options, including PRC's, and it didn't work well for her? They part about how using this app has significantly increased her communications abilities where other solutions failed? PRC might have a rightful claim and a right to protect it, but that's not what the issue is about here. The issue is that the way they are going a…

PRC might have a rightful claim and a right to protect it, but that's not what the issue is about here.

Actually, that is exactly the issue here, like it or not. Yes, the article explains how the app has been of great benefit to them. That is a good thing. The issue, however, is PRC's right to protect what they feel is theirs--even though I personally detest it and they (and Apple) are the assholes here.

It's possible to be in the right and still act like total assholes.

Of course it is. And that is clearly what is happening here on the human scale. I don't think anyone disputes the asshole behavior of PRC or Apple's reaching too far by removing the app.

I both read the article and a bunch of others on the author's blog. The thing pointed out in my comment, and your parent's, is that the author steps too far in the direction of taking the personal aspect to the point of hyperbole, where it is clear that the app has added a greater amount of convenience to two-way communication, not allowed communication that did not otherwise exist or cannot exist through another medium, with more effort. The author is reacting to a threat to that convenience, and the changes it will bring in communication they've enjoyed with their daughter, which is an awesome thing in and of itself.

Neither I nor your parent comment were saying the author is wrong in being upset by this. I'd be completely upset if I enjoyed enhanced communication with one of my children and suddenly felt like that was threatened. But I wouldn't help my case by making hyperbolic statements about how losing this app means I can't communicate with my child at all anymore. That's what was pointed out here.

It's amazing that conversation on HN is in such a state lately that a well-reasoned comment pointing out a different dimension of the issue is downvoted, while a two-liner calling someone "a dick and an imbecile" isn't downvoted to oblivion.