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

New Zealand bans some software patents

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 230 posts

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#181

Post by foobarbazqux »

rayiner wrote: post #149
troyastorino wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal concepts that are derivative from the natural right to liberty, e.g. freedom of speech, are protected by the government, but that is not the same as them being created by the government. An individual certainly has liberty, and thus freedom of speech, in the context of a state of nature. He does not, however, have a guarantee that an organization with a monopoly on the use of force, i.e. a government, will prot…

I can't believe that there are so many people in a scientific, technical, industry like the software industry that believe in something as facially superstitious and handwavy as "natural rights."

From what I can tell, the idea of natural rights is really popular with people who are into anarcho-capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Conte...

> Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard.

As far as I'm concerned:

  legal rights : natural rights :: laws : morals

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#182

Post by foobarbazqux »

nitrogen wrote: post #178
rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe that there are so many people in a scientific, technical, industry like the software industry that believe in something as facially superstitious and handwavy as "natural rights."

I can't believe that there are so many people in a scientific, technical, industry like the software industry that believe in something as facially superstitious and handwavy as "natural rights." As a first pass at a definition, anything you could do in the absence of any other people stopping you from doing it could be considered a "natural right." That's not superstitious or handwavy, and I didn't have to belittle…

Do I have a natural right to hurt somebody weaker than me?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#183

Post by btilly »

FOSSpatents wrote: post #78
btilly wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inaccuracies started with your claim to be an "independent" analyst when you were actually a paid shill, and only got worse from there. You are right that there is an appeal - there always is. But consider that the judge the first time around ruled nothing like you claimed would happen. On anything. Why should we expect the appeal to be different?

@btilly In district court, the jury identified copyright infringement, was hung on fair use (which means that this would have to be determined by a new jury if the relevant code is found copyrightable), and the judge overruled the jury to the effect that the court additionally ruled that certain test files I had published in January 2011 were indeed infringed. The key thing that was missing was copyrightability. You'…

You don't really need a list of your misrepresentations of reality, but http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 may remind you of some of them.

I should note that it was written at a time when you were still claiming to be independent. You know, before you faced the fact that your name was going to be on Oracle's list of paid lobbyists and so you admitted to it up front in the way that made it look as good as possible.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#184

Post by iopq »

a-priori wrote: post #96
baddox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, empirically, property existed long before governments.

Well yes, as soon as a creature needs to expend energy to obtain a thing they plan on using later, another creature is going to try to obtain it in a simpler way: by stealing it. And so, even apes and birds have a concept of 'property': things that are theirs , usually cached food, that they will take pains to hide and/or defend. With humans it isn't quite so clear. The default societal structure for humans is the ba…

Except that's not true. Monkeys are supposed to give the eggs or other food items that they find to the senior members of their group. But sometimes they'll eat them when nobody is looking, or if they create a diversion (like they'll call like a predator is coming)

so theft can be done in group, especially when there's scarcity

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#185

Post by iopq »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #93
baddox wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can and do protect what they believe to be their property. Families and tribes can and do protect the territory they believe to belong to their members. I like David Friedman's description of property rights not primarily as moral or legal constructs, but as mutually recognized commitment strategies which discourage trespasses. He points out that territorialism in the animal kingdom is similar to property righ…

I would call that a state; why is it not a state?

a state has to: 1) tax people who live there 2) threaten people who don't pay with force

otherwise, it has no resources of its own, so it doesn't exist as an entity

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#186

Post by iopq »

jusben1369 wrote: post #115
jlgreco wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most normal well adjusted people, I don't steal and I expect and find that those around me do the same. The reason my coworkers haven't stolen the keyboard off my desk when I go to get coffee isn't the government, it is just because they have some base-level respect for me. Clearly the concept of property, at least as it exists in my office, is not an artifact of some governing body. It exists despite that; it e…

"The reason my coworkers haven't stolen the keyboard off my desk when I go to get coffee isn't the government, it is just because they have some base-level respect for me." - Do you really believe that? If someone wanted your keyboard their thought process - if conscious - probably follows the following: "If I take that and get caught then I'll likely be fired. So it's not worth me putting my monthly salary of $5000…

Of course they can fire you. They can stop paying you. You can stay in the building all you want.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#187

Post by foobarbazqux »

humanrebar wrote: post #140
foobarbazqux wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference legal and natural rights corresponds to the difference between laws and morals. That's all I mean. Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things.

Let me recap, because discussions become convoluted in forum format. First ataggart makes the point that elevating patent and copyright privileges to the level of natural rights is wrong and implies (through Orwell) that confusing intellectual property rights and physical property rights leads to foolish thinking. Then, you make the argument that it doesn't matter because, "Every legal concept is entirely the governm…

The difference between legal rights and natural rights is that legal rights are guaranteed by force. As soon as you guarantee a natural right by force it becomes a legal right: you make the law.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#188

Post by foobarbazqux »

iopq wrote: post #185
foobarbazqux wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would call that a state; why is it not a state?

a state has to: 1) tax people who live there 2) threaten people who don't pay with force otherwise, it has no resources of its own, so it doesn't exist as an entity

How is this not the case in the residential pride of lions where the 5-6 lionesses do the hunting for the 1-2 male lion leaders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Group_organization

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#190

Post by sspiff »

cromwellian wrote: post #150
rayiner wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love. I think it's a major problem when something like 60% of all IP litigation is over software patents, a relatively obscure area of the law until recently, but I disagree with this statement. I worked for two entrepreneurs who founded real R&D companies and considered patents to be a basic protection that allowed them to operate a small R&D company ind…

"R&D company" that ships no produces seems a bizarre concept to me. If you're doing pure research and you don't want to manufacture anything, then outsource it, or partner with someone who can and sign them to an iron-clad contract protecting a trade secret. I'm be curious if anyone can even name any "pure R&D" software companies that don't ship products, yet created meaningful advancements. Even in the realm of hard…

rayiner wasn't talking about software. Software companies have an easy time "producing" their products. It's much harder in the hardware sector or when you invent car technology. Getting into those markets is expensive. Forging a deal with a car manufacturer, for instance, would put you in an extremely weak negotiating position. Patents give you some leverage and a defense mechanism when they go and use it without your permission.

So I also think ARM is a valid example of companies that wouldn't be alive if not for the patent system.

All that said, I'm not in favor of patents at all. Thinking of something should not give you ownership over a broad concept. Information should be shared freely, to improve upon and so everyone can enjoy the invention.

Post reply on HN