Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Even experts get it wrong

notch.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#91

Post by sadga »

travisp wrote: post #23
zmb_ wrote: post #20

> 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.

It's written explicitly in the U.S. Constitution:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
    by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
    to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#92

Post by CodeMage »

chimi wrote: post #56
shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier 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…

Laws are not about dictionary definitions or personal interpretation. They are a formal specification and that formality is what we call "legalese".

I'm not a lawyer, so I would probably mess up the explanation, but fortunately I saved the link to it, so you can read it straight from the lawyer who explained it right here on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3696526

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#94

Post by josephcooney »

raphman wrote: post #87
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ack. IIRC Microsoft Research has the policy that researchers may never look at patents at all.

Not just MS research. IIRR if you had something you thought was patentable you handed it off to them, and they did the leg work so you didn't become 'tainted' by looking at patents. Very weird.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#95

Post by npsimons »

shasta wrote: post #45
irahul wrote: post #4

The 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…

Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents.

From the US constitution, section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note how it doesn't say anything about "intellectual property" or "theft" or "moral rights", or even third parties. I'm not in favor of abolition of copyright, patents and trademarks, but this is exactly the kind of muddled, framing[1] language that the blog post linked to is trying to correct.

The laws have been pushed so far in the direction of "protecting" intellectual "property", and language has become so twisted by those who have the most to gain from the results that you can argue it's how things stand today, but it obviously wasn't the original intent, and it doesn't necessarily make it right. It's also not necessarily good economic policy (you want to see startups killed off in this country? Just continue to let copyright, patent and trademark law continue to expand).

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#96

Post by npsimons »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #76
shasta wrote: post #59

Earlier 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 .

Another example: if an “identity thief” appropriates your personal information, you’re still the same person—your identity wasn’t stolen, it was infringed.

Just to go off on a tangent for a moment, this is another reframing of a crime that bothers me. There were already laws on the books against "identity theft" long before it happened: it's called fraud. So why does identity theft exist? Because banks and creditors and government agencies are constantly trying to reduce cost, they don't want to have to track down the person who defrauded them, that costs money. Instead, they put the burden of proof on you, and now it's your mess to clean up.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#98

Post by belorn »

chimi wrote: post #56
shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier 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…

Its not stealing because the word fails when used outside physical property. To make some examples:

Person X entered my building without authority or right to use the restroom. He stole my restroom!

Person X insulted me. He thus "stole" my reputation.

In Sweden, the state has sole right to sell alcohol, thus any Person X that is selling alcohol is thus "stealing" from the state.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#99

Post by belorn »

dllthomas wrote: post #57
Ryan_Shmotkin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Trademark isn't there to prevent theft of brilliant brand names; it's there to prevent confusion. That's an entirely different endeavor than either patent (protecting ideas) or copyright (protecting creative expression).

This is a lost truth on most people. If something trademarked can be used in a context that does not result in the consumer being confused, then the owner automatically loose the trademark. Its a consumer protection law, not an anti-competition law.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#100

Post by Someone »

chimi wrote: post #56
shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier 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…

Why do you pick meaning #3? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate (emphasis added):

  1 : to take *exclusive* possession of
Also: why are you calling copying 'taking'? If I sit down at the Mona Lisa, paint a copy, and take that home, do I steal it?
Post reply on HN