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

151–160 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#151

Post by lloeki »

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.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#152

Post by LinXitoW »

Jtsummers wrote: post #92
hetman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then Microsoft never obstructed anyone from using Macs instead. That line of argumentation didn't seem to interest the courts much.

Microsoft had a monopoly, >95% market share at the time of the anti-trust suit. They deliberately blocked other OSes from manufacturers' PCs (BeOS, for instance, from Compaq's lineup). Apple may have the largest single share, but they are not in a monopoly position.

Well, iOS is also the only OS to run on iDevices. You can't switch to Android on your iPhone, you need to get a new phone altogether, just like you would've had to get a new Mac, instead of just installing another(BeOS) OS.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#153

Post by omegaworks »

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…

Are we really blaming the technology here? You're neglecting the reality: that a person--a living, breathing, thinking person--is behind the switch or lever that eliminates access.

Connected computing is the inevitable future. We will always hold less physical computing capability in our hands then can be beamed to us from afar on-demand.

What is ridiculous is the systems--the people systems--we have built that fostered this ethical failure. The social system of law that constrains Apple's behaviors. The internal social system at Apple whose 'conservative' default behavior is to remove rather then remit. There's a dude at Apple whose fear for losing his job overrides any sense of disgust he may have felt doing this.

The technology is not at fault. Our contemporary framework for regulating that technology--our society's response to that technology--is at fault.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#154

Post by air »

LinXitoW wrote: post #150
wissler wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no moral justification for patents. Period. There can be no actually moral argument that says "you are not allowed to think of the same thing this other fellow did and then trade it with someone." Patents are a form of feudalism. The very word "patent" is rooted in feudalism, where it used to be "land patents" that were granted to the landholders in the middle ages.

I'm not sure anyone would ever claim that patents are morally justified. Their justification is cultural, in a sense. They are there that invention is worth it. Invention and innovation, in turn, bring about advances for the entire culture that has surrendered these specific rights, because it sees more value in progress than in the rights that are given up for it. I don't know whether a culture without patents would…

"I'm not sure anyone would ever claim that patents are morally justified."

Objectivists do that:

Rand argued that limited intellectual property monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis as moral because she viewed all property as fundamentally intellectual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Poli...

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#155

Post by mbreese »

pgeorgi wrote: post #148
mbreese wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, as far as I know, Motorola is leveraging FRAND, standards necessary patents and Microsoft wasn't. There is a large difference.

How comes that the VFAT patent (held my Microsoft) is not considered FRAND? After all, it's part of the UEFI specs, SD card specs, and so on. And what about the new exFAT stuff (required for some of the newer SD specs, SDXC or something like that)? Microsoft certainly leverages those (esp. the VFAT stuff) against Linux in general, and Android specifically.

It is all about the dtandards body. I don't know which orgs are responsible for UEFI specs and SD format specs. It's up to the standards body to demand FRAND licensing.

There aren't any international standards that demand a vfat file system, are there? Are the vfat patents still in force, because I haven't payed anyone for those on any of my Linux systems. Is SD an ISO standard or just a consortium standard? (I don't know)

I'm not trying to say Microsoft has the cleanest hands with respect to patents, but in this case, it seems clear cut.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#156

Post by ajb »

This shows, yet again, is that software patents do not constitute a functioning property system. What are the affordances of a property system? A big one is that it provides reasonable certainty that you will have the use of something you think you own. Software patents actually work against this.

Lee and Mulligan (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968) make a good case that software firms "are unable to discover the patents their activities might infringe", because software patents are not "indexable" (unlike chemical patents, which are indexable by molecular formula) . Any companies know what their patent assets are, but not their liabilities, as testified by the fact that tech companies put pro-forma statements to this effect (with suitable weasel wording) in their SEC filings. Now we are seeing that due to the app store model, this risk is propagated to ordinary customers.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#157

Post by mbreese »

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.

It would be more correct to say that they own the physical media and a license to use the software on the media.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#158

Post by jan_g »

regularfry wrote: post #120
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…

The fourth part is where Apple are acting in place of the judiciary. Taking the article at its word, Apple have taken and enforced a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with respect to their own suppliers and customers. Ignoring for a moment how bizarrely arrogant that is, there's a very good reason we rely on independent judges and juries to get these questions right.

Yes, the same approach is taken for example by Facebook. If there's a complaint, Facebook will first freeze an account and only unfreeze it after the dispute is resolved (by the parties themselves or legally through court). Shoot-first-ask-later approach.

I don't know why this is prevalent approach, since 90% of the time it's the big companies initiating disputes. So small companies are taking the hit.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#159

Post by mkl »

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…

3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done?

I don't know about the broader problem, but for the present situation my first thought was that someone should make a clone of the app that can be sideloaded onto an Android tablet. That's an (almost) immediate fix, but unfortunately it's hardly a solution. It seems like it could only be distributed to one or a few people before it risked similar lawsuits, and there's the long term to think about, too. Besides just OS updates, what will happen as kids using this software grow? For some, but not everyone, reading will open new avenues for communication. For others, ongoing development to increase sophistication seems necessary.

Does anyone know if Speak for Yourself is still available outside the US, where patents are saner? I tried looking, but couldn't figure out how to search iTunes from the website.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#160

Post by gbog »

jkn wrote: post #139
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…

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 prescribe, we should forbid information processing companies to sell us the devices where this information is processed on.

I'm looking at you, Google, Apple and contenders. Everyone belived 1984 was targeted at totalitarian government, but maybe the dark prophecy is being fulfilled under our eyes.

If I were a good pamphletist, I would write a punchy call for arms on the topic.

Post reply on HN