Notch knocking down a strawman frontpages on HN.
It's one thing to set up your own straw man and then knock him down, it's quite another when your enemy is actually made of straw.
Even experts get it wrong
41–50 of 147 posts
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#42Notch knocking down a strawman frontpages on HN.
This isn't even close to being a strawman. The argument put forward by Ric Richardson, Inventor is a bad one but that doesn't mean he intended it to be. On the contrary, Ric Richardson, Inventor intended it to justify predatory action against a real inventor and belittle anyone who has a problem with that. It gets my goat to hear people like this talk about others "stealing" technology they "invented". What these par…
[deleted]
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#43What I don't get, and I hope somebody can enlighten me here is this: Isn't Mojang a swedish company, registered in Sweden? How can the US patent law apply to Sweden since Sweden has a different patent law? For example, I have my company in Germany, where it's (almost) impossible to get a patent for software patents. So if a greedy patent troll in Texas decides that one of my apps infringes their patents, can they eve…
If you're selling to the US (as Mojang is), then you can be bought to trial there.
What would be the worst that could happen then if I'd just ignore it and decide to never visit the US again nor sell anything to the US again?
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#44> Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented and letting you have a fair shot at making a living from it. Patents are quite explicitly not there to stop people "stealing a technology". You can already do this by keeping your invention secret (which many jurisdictions grant some form of protection). The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to publicly disclose their inventions so that…
I keep hearing this "purpose of patents", and while it's a common belief today, I don't know that it really fits in with what historically has been the purpose of patents. Much 19th century writing on patents and intellectual property saw them as fundamental property rights that protect the fruits of one's labor.
The same thought pops into my mind from time to time. Even if you take a more "common good" approach I don't think you can exclude the benefit where patents provide incentives for the actual labor. For example, in the classic case with pharmaceuticals I think it would be hard to argue that keeping the active ingredient a secret would be an alternative to patent protection. It most certainly would not since a competitor would have an insane advantage in finding the active ingredient if they could buy a sample for 10 bucks...
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#45The dude attacking Mojang isn't looking good. > Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him. Eh, didn't take the time to consider some of us are against the patent bullying, and not just fanboys. > 1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question. > 2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think? As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they should refrain…
Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented
Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. Patent legislation casts a wider net only because there's no effective way to assess the validity of someone's claim that "I invented this independently and was uninfluenced by your invention."
You and notch are in the technically wrong column on this one. Compare to: "Life jackets are there to prevent drowning". "No, they also prevent swimming under water".
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#46> Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented and letting you have a fair shot at making a living from it. Patents are quite explicitly not there to stop people "stealing a technology". You can already do this by keeping your invention secret (which many jurisdictions grant some form of protection). The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to publicly disclose their inventions so that…
I keep hearing this "purpose of patents", and while it's a common belief today, I don't know that it really fits in with what historically has been the purpose of patents. Much 19th century writing on patents and intellectual property saw them as fundamental property rights that protect the fruits of one's labor.
American patent law is somewhat different. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're selling to the US (as Mojang is), then you can be bought to trial there.
What would be the worst that could happen then if I'd just ignore it and decide to never visit the US again nor sell anything to the US again?
That's a very good question - and as all good questions it's difficult to answer: it depends. :)
There was recently a case where Håkan Lans argued he should not have to pay Acer after having lost a patent suit in Washington, because he is a Swedish citizen and the american verdict was according to him unjust. He first lost, but appealed and won in the appellate court (Hovrätten) [1]. The court argued that since there was no contract between the parties governing jurisdiction the foreign court decision could not be used in a Swedish court as proof of debt. Therefore Acer would have to sue Håkan Lans in Sweden, and have a Swedish court rule on the merits of the case, if they wanted the aid of Swedish authorities in collecting damages.
[1] http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/datorer/article250...
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#48The dude attacking Mojang isn't looking good. > Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him. Eh, didn't take the time to consider some of us are against the patent bullying, and not just fanboys. > 1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question. > 2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think? As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they should refrain…
By this reasoning, copyright infringement is not theft and should be tolerated.
Who said we didn't think of using "scrolls" or "apple" as our company name independently ?
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#49Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.
It's weirder than that. If the court determines that you knew about a patent and decided to violate it anyway, the penalty is considerably harsher. That means there is actually an incentive to remain as ignorant as possible about existing patents when developing new software.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention Uniloc doesn't even have technology. They do not create or sell software.
I was going to respond by playing devil's advocate and defending Ric and Uniloc. But a quick glance at their site proves you absolutely right. Here are some gems: Uniloc's surprising honesty: >And it fits our straightforward development model. Look at many ideas. Pick an outstanding one. Patent it. Commercialize it. Reap the rewards. Uniloc's vast knowledge of technology: >After all, Bell Labs did develop some fairly…
Hah. Someone who thinks UNIX is a programming language is obviously not intimately involved with building real technology.