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

311–320 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#311

Post by sangnoir »

jmilloy wrote: post #215

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.

Slipery slope: Wow, how could the [Apple] products really need to cost $[600]? It's buttons with a touch screen. Honestly, it sounds likelY that [HTC] 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 [Apple] exclusive rights to those ideas, especially if they're going to sell them for that price.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#312

Post by sp332 »

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 .

Are you seriously judging a patent by its title? This patent requires a touchscreen and a context-sensitive memory with strings of text. It's not just a keyboard mapper. http://www.google.com/patents/US5920303?hl=en

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#313

Post by sp332 »

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 completely wrong. Patents are supposed to protect small or individual inventors from having their work ripped off by larger manufacturers. Large companies are not the reason we have patents. They don't need patents because they're hard to compete with anyway. Patents are for the good of society by helping individuals, not by helping large corporations.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#314

Post by sp332 »

gcb wrote: post #287
regularfry wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who should pay for that? The company which believes they aren't infringing and are already in negotations over the licensing? Or the family who presumable don't have infinite wallets?

doesn't the company that claims to have invented it first have a product in the market?

No, the first company makes standalone devices. The (allegedly) infringing company, which I think was founded by former employees, makes an iPad app.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#315

Post by DennisP »

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…

> no little guy would ever be paid for his idea

That's always the rhetoric but in practice patents usually protect big companies at the expense of the little guy. This is especially true in software, where getting the patent is generally a lot more expensive than creating the invention. Only the big companies can afford to file patents for every little trick of coding they come up with.

And for all types of inventions, it's generally very expensive to litigate.

All sorts of inventive software was created before there were software patents, so empirically, it's clear that in this business at least we don't need patents.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#316

Post by martingal »

lloeki wrote: post #151
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…

> 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.

Doesn't the license granted by SfY to Maya's parents include a 'peaceful enjoyment' clause ? Such clause should hold them harmless of any claim of 3td party patent infringement. And if the infringement can't be cured, SfY should offer them a replacement solution at no cost.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#317

Post by wissler »

flyinRyan wrote: post #306
wissler wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sorry but this is just not true. You say the kind of people who deserve a patent would do the work either way and then you suggest a handful of people. Many, many people have created things for the purpose of making money. Your world would eliminate people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Later in life, when Jobs had billions, he didn't seem to care about money anymore but in the beginning Apple tried everything.…

"Your world would eliminate people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates."

You've got to be kidding. Do you know nothing about the history of software?

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."--Bill Gates

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#318

Post by batista »

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…

>* 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*

One problem is that if that weren't allowed, we'd probably never have the app in the first place...

The app was made for THAT platform, for THAT store and for THAT hardware product.

Now, one can assume but we would have gotten something like the iPhone eventually anyway, but if you see what the hardware-first companies were shipping at the time of the iPhone's launch, that might have taken 5-10 more years.

I don't mean it could only happen by Apple: just that it could only happen by a process of building things where hardware+software are given equal importance, and ONE entity calls the shots for both.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#319

Post by Confusion »

sp332 wrote: post #313
Confusion wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 completely wrong. Patents are supposed to protect small or individual inventors from having their work ripped off by larger manufacturers. Large companies are not the reason we have patents. They don't need patents because they're hard to compete with anyway. Patents are for the good of society by helping individuals, not by helping large corporations.

Corporation != large corporation. A small neighbourhood family shop is a corporation if they've legally separated their personal and business finances, which is usually advisable. Limiting individual liability and being able to share ownership were the original reasons for allowing corporations. This is true for small and large corporations.

Corporations also exist for the good of society. They allow individuals to limit their liability and share a risk with others. Patents are granted to individuals, but those individuals are free to bequeath them to the corporations they are part of. Or they have freely signed an agreement that they will bequeath them to the corporation.

Now I agree the original reason for patents wasn't to encourage corporations to do R&D. I only gave a nutshell outline of the argument: I wasn't trying to be historically, philosophically or legalistically thorough, so I don't think this kind of criticism is very appropriate. I'll happily admit being wrong, but it is certainly not 'completely wrong': corporations were never restricted from being granted patents, even though that has been suggested. The common argument is the same argument given for individuals: protect the inventor or his corporation.

Neither corporations nor patents came into being with immoral intentions. Both ideas have actually proven quite successful. Unfortunately, we are now seeing some excesses of (the combination of) them that suggest the rules need to be changed.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#320

Post by roopeshv »

wissler wrote: post #317
flyinRyan wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but this is just not true. You say the kind of people who deserve a patent would do the work either way and then you suggest a handful of people. Many, many people have created things for the purpose of making money. Your world would eliminate people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Later in life, when Jobs had billions, he didn't seem to care about money anymore but in the beginning Apple tried everything.…

"Your world would eliminate people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates." You've got to be kidding. Do you know nothing about the history of software? "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."--Bill Gates

"that's the great thing about internet, you can make up quotes, and attribute it to others" --abraham lincoln

so, please cite.

Post reply on HN