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

261–270 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#261

Post by pooriaazimi »

Karunamon wrote: post #221
pooriaazimi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No offense taken :) >He wasn't the only one, but was one of those guys who created this device that's giving this child a voice in the first place. That's a matter of happenstance, though. Jobs and Apple didn't create a device altruistically to be used by the disabled, they created a very popular piece of consumer electronics. Nothing more. Any other light touchpad device with a similar app would fit Maya's use case,…

That's my point: It could've been a cheap Android clone; but it wasn't. It was an iPad. Why? (who knows, but maybe) because Jobs & co., with their fiendish desire to create a useful device, were able to create something that people would actually use, create apps for AND purchase from its curated (and sometimes, unfair) stores. IF there wasn't a curated store, and a good device, maybe there would not have been an SfY right now; someone would eventually create something like this, but that could've been 5 years from now (IF Apple had not created iOS, Android wouldn't be what it is NOW, because of competition. It would be as good as it is in 3-4 years, but not right now). So, little Maya would've been voiceless for the past months; as she couldn't use those $15,000 devices.

And, personally, I really don't care about intents. Some believe there is a God and he judges based on your intents. I like to be more pragmatic and judge by impact. Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, so Alice shouldn't be called a great children books that millions of kids have had a great time reading. I couldn't care less if he was a pedophile, or Mother Teresa's assistant. Likewise, I don't give a damn if Jobs was a money-loving, dictator bastard. He was a major component in PC revolution, smartphone business and tablets. So, I respect him and credit him for a lot of lives that has changed by these devices. If I could, I would create a big statue of him, just to inspire others to take lead from him (it doesn't mean that I think he's a saint or I agree with more than 1% of the things he has done in his life, it just means that I think this guy, with all his faults and shortcomings was at least somehow useful for the world; what most of people are not and die without trying to change the world a better place).

Your world view very well might be different than mine, and that certainly changes the way you feel and think about Jobs, Gates, or other rich people. :)

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#263

Post by creamyhorror »

josephcooney wrote: post #102
gte910h wrote: post #66

If anyone feels like making a copycat app over the weekend. http://www.speakforyourself.org/About_The_App.html

I contacted the parents via the email on their blog and offered to do just this.

Keep us updated. I wonder if the concept could be tweaked enough to be sufficiently different from the patented ideas, but as/even more effective?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#264

Post by jeremyarussell »

rimantas wrote: post #255
artmageddon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

He thought you meant that open source makes the world worse.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#265

Post by smacktoward »

primitur wrote: post #238
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…

>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 soon…

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

You're kidding, right? The difference is that software in Linux distro repositories (which is what I assume you're referencing) is both free as in beer and open source. Which kind of makes it the opposite of what most people think of when they say "app store."

(Pre-emptive nitpick: it's true that Canonical has recently started offering commercial software via the Ubuntu Software center, but that came many years after Apple's App Store launched.)

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#266

Post by jeremyarussell »

wissler wrote: post #242
flyinRyan wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tesla was one in a million. For your ideas to work you would need to teach the entire 7 billion strong population of humans that we need to peacefully work together as a species. I'm sure you'll be met with great success. Until that day it is necessary to protect rights in a manner that lets people know they can do great things and not have to worry that someone will steal their years of hard work.

I don't agree with people filing this lawsuit. I don't think their idea is all that novel. I also think patents shouldn't last longer then it takes to recoup the investment.

TL;DR = People don't work that way, but yeah the patent system is currently ridiculous.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#267

Post by bitwize »

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.

Vernor v. Autodesk says otherwise.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#268

Post by creamyhorror »

gaius wrote: post #190
creamyhorror wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. This appears to be the crux of it: is the technology that SfY 'copied' actually the direct results of decades of effort, or could it have been created by a few designers and developers looking at the problem of assisting disabled child…

the technology that SfY 'copied' actually the direct results of decades of effort, or could it have been created by a few designers and developers looking at the problem of assisting disabled children over a few months? You are making the classical developer mistake of thinking that programming is the hard part. Generally programming is the easy part. Domain knowledge is the hard part. Let me give you an example, any…

And you make the classic mistake of faulty analogizing.

I totally acknowledge that it takes domain knowledge to come up with a good solution. However, I specifically ask this question because it looks likely to me that that doesn't apply in this particular case. An app that uses a hierarchical display of symbols to allow input of language seems to me like a natural, intuitive approach to allowing a user to generate speech. I believe if a few people were to iterate on an app for this purpose, they'd probably have come across this approach pretty quickly. In other words, I'm saying this is more an archetypal case of a broken software patent, rather than of a specialized domain invention that just happens to use computer hardware.

I could not have come up with the equation e = mc^2, but I believe I could have come up with the basic idea of a hierarchical icon display used to input language without years/decades of research. It would have been even easier for a speech pathologist to achieve that in this era of software and programmer abundance, even if PRC had never developed their system and gotten their patents.

(Of course, if I've misunderstood the scope of the patents involved, I apologize.)

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#269

Post by wissler »

wissler wrote: post #242
flyinRyan wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

jeremyrussell: "People don't work that way" is question-begging (if you don't know what that logical fallacy is please see Wikipedia).

The point is that they ought to work that way. People can and should change. Answering "well they don't work that way" as an argument against this is fallacious. I mean, take your argument and apply it to (say) cannibals. A cannibalistic tribe would say "well, we eat people, we've always eaten people, therefore things will never change."

There can't be a logical, rational argument for patents. Which is unsurprising, since patents are clearly barbaric. So barbarians defend patents using (surprise) barbaric illogic.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#270

Post by shmerl »

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…

You miss the main point, that software shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Software patents can't possibly serve any positive purpose.
Post reply on HN