What 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…
Even experts get it wrong
81–90 of 147 posts
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#82> In fact, you can break this law without even knowing that someone else thought of the idea first. This is the biggest flaw with the current patent system. The reality is if an invention falls into this category, it should not be patentable. Raising the barrier of "obviousness" to a level requiring an invention be transformative to the point that, within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else indepe…
> within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else independently invents the same thing is sufficiently small // The problem then is that there is little to no incentive for the applicant to share the idea. If it's something no one will come up with, then you can keep it secret and benefit from an indefinitely extended monopoly. The quid pro quo of patents is early information about new inventions in ex…
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#83> In fact, you can break this law without even knowing that someone else thought of the idea first. This is the biggest flaw with the current patent system. The reality is if an invention falls into this category, it should not be patentable. Raising the barrier of "obviousness" to a level requiring an invention be transformative to the point that, within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else indepe…
> within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else independently invents the same thing is sufficiently small // The problem then is that there is little to no incentive for the applicant to share the idea. If it's something no one will come up with, then you can keep it secret and benefit from an indefinitely extended monopoly. The quid pro quo of patents is early information about new inventions in ex…
I'm having trouble thinking of something that:
1) You can benefit more from as an industrial secret than as a patented invention.
2) Society is harmed by the lack of public disclosure.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't understand why people keep saying it isn't stealing. According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of STEAL transitive verb 1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully and Definition of APPROPRIATE transitive verb 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? There's nothing in the definiti…
The thing need not be directly physical. You can steal money from someone and spend it without ever seeing a paper dollar.
Your definition would have me stealing a wall of a public building when I drop trou to urinate on it. That's one way to make use of it.
We have different words with different meanings for a reason. That's why we object to adding "unauthorized copying" to the definition of stealing.
"Nothing of value was lost", only perhaps "potential value". If it couldn't be copied, it could potentially be worth $0 to the copier/market. That's what makes copying distinct from stealing and interesting from a moral point of view.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else independently invents the same thing is sufficiently small // The problem then is that there is little to no incentive for the applicant to share the idea. If it's something no one will come up with, then you can keep it secret and benefit from an indefinitely extended monopoly. The quid pro quo of patents is early information about new inventions in ex…
Ok, but what percentage of software patents are going to be useful in 20 years when they go into the public domain anyway? Doesn't seem like there's a lot of society downside to just keeping them secret vs open but unable to use until 2032.
But anyway ... if it's not useful it doesn't matter that it's patented and if it is then you've got full disclosure. So I'm not sure the percentage is really important. Perhaps the fees should increase at a greater rate to encourage early release of patented inventions that aren't high worth.
Personally I'd limit the term to about 8 years for all patents and dispense with US business method and pure software patents.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#86Most 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.
>> Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. Huh? Patent infringment consists of using some technique without the permission of the owner. There's intent all over that. Are you suggesting that folks are using techniques without the intent to use said techniques? Or that they aren't intending to use them without the permission of the owner? (Yes, you can argue that they didn't know that they need…
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#87Most 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
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't understand why people keep saying it isn't stealing. According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of STEAL transitive verb 1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully and Definition of APPROPRIATE transitive verb 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? There's nothing in the definiti…
I think a far better word for these discussions is "trespass" as in "he trespassed on my patent/copyright/trademark". I think this has the advantage of being closer to literally true in a legal sense, more in line with what our moral intuition ought to be about for copyright, and giving the right idea about how the law regards the acts (copyright and trespass can be crimes if done in certain ways, but are usually just torts).
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most general interpretation of that definition doesn't seem to match common usage of "steal". If I use your pen without permission, but without taking it, you're going to confuse a lot of people if you claim I stole it. Secondly, there's a difference between what's being argued here and the common "copying isn't theft". Notch is pointing out that patent infringement doesn't even always involve copying. Sometimes…
Another example: if an “identity thief” appropriates your personal information, you’re still the same person—your identity wasn’t stolen , it was infringed .
Having published creative works on the Internet myself, I certainly understand why so many content creators try to prevent unauthorized copying. You really do feel vulnerable. Something you're very proud of has been shared with the world, and now it's in some seedy part of the Internet, with forum dwellers making fun of it.
I've noticed that as social creatures, we're unable to have empathy for corporations. There's nobody to feel guilty towards when you download that copy of Autodesk Maya. I don't think our brains are designed for it. We like individuals and small businesses because we can fit a picture of the actual people inside our heads. We feel guilty when we infringe upon their copyrights, because we know it might actually hurt them personally.
Most illegal acts can be boiled down to emotional damage. As pointed out elsewhere in this post, the right to property is an abstract concept. You _decided_ to hold onto that object, and you're unwilling to part with it. It doesn't seem abstract, because it's something our brains instinctively do, but it has no root in physical reality.
Why is murder a crime? Supernatural beliefs aside, the victim most certainly doesn't care anymore, because he's dead. As we all know, the problem is the emotional and financial damage to the people left behind. Prison sentences serve to control this damage.
Can a large corporation feel emotional damage? Should these laws apply if there is no emotional hurt? Everyone can see that a large company like Adobe is nowhere near going bankrupt, and their employees are most certainly not hurting because of piracy. Adobe has money coming out of its rear end.
Perhaps our laws should offer less protection if you're big and strong. Vast swaths of the world's population are happily breaking copyright law, and _not_ feeling guilty about it. Some shades of gray are clearly missing here.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#90He made a room full of young entrepreneurs with unique ideas feel very nervous. He feeds on innovation.