Interesting comment on Slashdot...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 10, 2008.

  1. http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=411490&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=21966060

    "" We are coming up to a point where we are looking at a future where we
    could lose control of what is on our own computers! Vista is already
    trying to decide if you should be able to access your own files that are
    already on your computer! Take this fact and combine it with the whole
    limitations being rammed down our throat with HDTV and we are looking at
    being consumers that are buying things that we have no control over. A
    computer could easily act as a HDTV 'VCR' because that is an amazingly
    simple function but we have been forced to buy into a system where that
    isn't allowed. The only HDTV VCR like devices are subscription ($$)
    based! ""


    Also an interesting quote from BillieGates Gruff.


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
    > http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=411490&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=21966060
    >
    > "" We are coming up to a point where we are looking at a future where we
    > could lose control of what is on our own computers! Vista is already
    > trying to decide if you should be able to access your own files that are
    > already on your computer! Take this fact and combine it with the whole
    > limitations being rammed down our throat with HDTV and we are looking at
    > being consumers that are buying things that we have no control over. A
    > computer could easily act as a HDTV 'VCR' because that is an amazingly
    > simple function but we have been forced to buy into a system where that
    > isn't allowed. The only HDTV VCR like devices are subscription ($$)
    > based! ""
    >
    >
    > Also an interesting quote from BillieGates Gruff.
    >
    >


    If people buy it they only have themselves to blame....personally I can
    see two distinct streams of consumers emerging, those declining few* who
    are stuck fast in the "let me open my wallet MS/Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and
    take it all" and can only buy/consume legit products and the growing
    wave of people who can only consume pirated material.

    There is a saying only fight if you have to and only fight if you can
    win....ie the RIAA's and MPAA's of this world are not going to be able
    to stop the pirates or their (the pirates) consumers, the value
    proposition v getting caught is just too good, and they (the RIAA/MPAA)
    will be force a choice they wont win IMHO.

    regards

    Thing
    *mostly in the USA and EU, the "3rd" world which are most of the global
    population will go pirate.
     
    thingy, Jan 10, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    peter Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > If people buy it they only have themselves to blame....personally I can
    > see two distinct streams of consumers emerging, those declining few* who
    > are stuck fast in the "let me open my wallet MS/Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and
    > take it all" and can only buy/consume legit products and the growing
    > wave of people who can only consume pirated material.


    Actually, there are valid and worthwhile uses for copyright. Unfortunately,
    abuses from both sides creates a risk that society looses a lot from all
    this. Sadly, it seems our govt doesn't have a clue, and just does what the
    foreign media corporates tell them.
    Lawrence Lessig has some interesting comments ...
    http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187


    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 13, 2008
    #3
  4. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    peter wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >> If people buy it they only have themselves to blame....personally I can
    >> see two distinct streams of consumers emerging, those declining few* who
    >> are stuck fast in the "let me open my wallet MS/Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and
    >> take it all" and can only buy/consume legit products and the growing
    >> wave of people who can only consume pirated material.

    >
    > Actually, there are valid and worthwhile uses for copyright. Unfortunately,
    > abuses from both sides creates a risk that society looses a lot from all
    > this. Sadly, it seems our govt doesn't have a clue, and just does what the
    > foreign media corporates tell them.
    > Lawrence Lessig has some interesting comments ...
    > http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
    >
    >
    > Peter
    >
    >
    >


    I totally agree with the value of copyright and patents, (after all the
    GPL is nothing without copyright) where they are there for the purpose
    for which they were envisioned.

    I think our Govn does have a clue, I think its done because they have
    "greater goals" ie a free trade agreement with the US to start
    with....so they sell our pockets for the "greater good"...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jan 13, 2008
    #4
  5. In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >peter wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>> If people buy it they only have themselves to blame....personally I can
    >>> see two distinct streams of consumers emerging, those declining few* who
    >>> are stuck fast in the "let me open my wallet MS/Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and
    >>> take it all" and can only buy/consume legit products and the growing
    >>> wave of people who can only consume pirated material.

    >>
    >> Actually, there are valid and worthwhile uses for copyright. Unfortunately,
    >> abuses from both sides creates a risk that society looses a lot from all
    >> this. Sadly, it seems our govt doesn't have a clue, and just does what the
    >> foreign media corporates tell them.
    >> Lawrence Lessig has some interesting comments ...
    >> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187

    >
    >I totally agree with the value of copyright and patents, (after all the
    >GPL is nothing without copyright) where they are there for the purpose
    >for which they were envisioned.
    >
    >I think our Govn does have a clue, I think its done because they have
    >"greater goals" ie a free trade agreement with the US to start
    >with....so they sell our pockets for the "greater good"...


    Mayhap. The only good news I see here is that bad laws will simply be
    ignored. They were years ago (format shifting) ... they will be now and in
    the future. Locked down h/w is another problem. A few more 'sony root kit'
    debacles and that problem could well be solved by a sudden attack of
    consumer knowledge and self interest. I remain hopeful. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 14, 2008
    #5
  6. On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:37:07 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > I totally agree with the value of copyright and patents, (after all the
    > GPL is nothing without copyright) where they are there for the purpose
    > for which they were envisioned.


    I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of software
    patents.


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 14, 2008
    #6
  7. In article <>, Smoking Causes Lung
    Cancer (SCLC) did write:

    > I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of software
    > patents.


    Software is the only field of human endeavour in the world that gets the
    protection of both copyrights and patents. Everything else is content with
    one or the other, not both.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 14, 2008
    #7
  8. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >> peter wrote:
    >>> thingy wrote:
    >>>> If people buy it they only have themselves to blame....personally I can
    >>>> see two distinct streams of consumers emerging, those declining few* who
    >>>> are stuck fast in the "let me open my wallet MS/Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and
    >>>> take it all" and can only buy/consume legit products and the growing
    >>>> wave of people who can only consume pirated material.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, there are valid and worthwhile uses for copyright. Unfortunately,
    >>> abuses from both sides creates a risk that society looses a lot from all
    >>> this. Sadly, it seems our govt doesn't have a clue, and just does what the
    >>> foreign media corporates tell them.
    >>> Lawrence Lessig has some interesting comments ...
    >>> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187

    >> I totally agree with the value of copyright and patents, (after all the
    >> GPL is nothing without copyright) where they are there for the purpose
    >> for which they were envisioned.
    >>
    >> I think our Govn does have a clue, I think its done because they have
    >> "greater goals" ie a free trade agreement with the US to start
    >> with....so they sell our pockets for the "greater good"...

    >
    > Mayhap. The only good news I see here is that bad laws will simply be
    > ignored. They were years ago (format shifting) ... they will be now and in
    > the future. Locked down h/w is another problem. A few more 'sony root kit'
    > debacles and that problem could well be solved by a sudden attack of
    > consumer knowledge and self interest. I remain hopeful. :)
    >
    >
    >


    I believe the Sony PS3 sold in the USA now comes without DRM?

    The rest of the world continues to suffer....sometimes I like the US law
    system....class actions seem a great way to make companies think again.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jan 14, 2008
    #8
  9. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:37:07 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> I totally agree with the value of copyright and patents, (after all the
    >> GPL is nothing without copyright) where they are there for the purpose
    >> for which they were envisioned.

    >
    > I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of software
    > patents.
    >
    >


    A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    the USPO got its act together....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jan 14, 2008
    #9
  10. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    impossible Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:fmetvj$hbj$...
    > In article <>, Smoking Causes Lung
    > Cancer (SCLC) did write:
    >
    >> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of software
    >> patents.

    >
    > Software is the only field of human endeavour in the world that gets the
    > protection of both copyrights and patents. Everything else is content with
    > one or the other, not both.


    Where did you come up with this "one or the other, not both" scheme?
    Copyright protection is available by default to any original work of
    authorship that is fixed in a tangible medium of some sort -- a manuscript,
    a film, a sound recording, an electronic file, etc. However, since copyright
    does not protect concepts, systems, or methods of operation , no matter how
    original they might be, an application for patent protection may be the only
    way for inventors to capture the financial benefits of their work. For
    example, the inventors of a new process for generating methane from
    newsgroup postings would automatically be entitled to copyright protection
    (in most countries) for any technical manuals, journal articles,
    demonstration videos, and so forth that they created to describe their
    breakthroughs. But if they wanted to actually protect the breakthroughs
    themselves -- that is, the chemical/biological manipulations involved --
    then they would have to apply for a patent to do so. Note that if the key
    breakthrough in this case happened to entail the solution to a non-obvious
    technical problem in the field of software engineering, as opposed to
    chemistry or biology, the issue would be exactly the same. While copyright
    would automatically protect the **expression** of that breakthrough in the
    form of software code (and manuals, etc), only the granting of a patent
    would protect the inventive step itself .
     
    impossible, Jan 14, 2008
    #10
  11. On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:

    >> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >> software patents.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    > software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    > the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    > software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    > the USPO got its act together....


    If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task or
    other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    patent the mathematics?


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 15, 2008
    #11
  12. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    impossible Guest

    "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >>> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >>> software patents.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    >> software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    >> the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    >> software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    >> the USPO got its act together....

    >
    > If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task or
    > other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    > But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    > patent the mathematics?
    >


    No one gets a patent on "the mathematics" -- that's a straw-man argument
    commonly used by people do belittle the significance of new and inventive
    **applications** of mathematics. Like Google's method of determining the
    relevance of Web pages in relation to search queries:

    http://www.news.com/2100-1024-986204.html

    Why should a unique mathematical formula like this be any less patentable
    than a unique chemical formula? Or a unique mechanical design?
     
    impossible, Jan 15, 2008
    #12
  13. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >>> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >>> software patents.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    >> software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    >> the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    >> software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    >> the USPO got its act together....

    >
    > If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task or
    > other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    > But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    > patent the mathematics?
    >
    >


    With a physical patent you dont patent the material it is made out
    of....take a classical example, steam engine reversing gear, there are
    literally 100s of designs all doing the same thing but with a differing
    method/action....no one patented the fact these are made out of steel or
    bronze, or the fact that someone might want to reverse a steam
    engine.....(my second point).

    So, I see no difference between an idea that has value being patented if
    its a physical piece of hardware or a piece of software. Someone thought
    of the idea, did some work on it and offered it for sale to solve a
    problem/issue....

    Where I take great exception to is where someone thought to patent the
    fact that allowing steam engines to reverse but then producing no or
    little real method to achieve it and then suing someone who came up with
    a workable solution independently....

    regards

    thing
     
    thingy, Jan 15, 2008
    #13
  14. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    thingy Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >>>> software patents.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    >>> software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    >>> the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    >>> software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    >>> the USPO got its act together....

    >> If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task or
    >> other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    >> But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    >> patent the mathematics?
    >>

    >
    > No one gets a patent on "the mathematics" -- that's a straw-man argument
    > commonly used by people do belittle the significance of new and inventive
    > **applications** of mathematics. Like Google's method of determining the
    > relevance of Web pages in relation to search queries:
    >
    > http://www.news.com/2100-1024-986204.html
    >
    > Why should a unique mathematical formula like this be any less patentable
    > than a unique chemical formula? Or a unique mechanical design?
    >
    >


    Provided it is indeed unique and Google does not sue others because
    their software does the same thing (whether more or less effectively)...

    In this case the formula is or should be easily copyrighted and a
    copyright should and would be more than adequate.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Jan 15, 2008
    #14
  15. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <> wrote in
    >> message news:p...
    >>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >>>>> software patents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    >>>> software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    >>>> the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see
    >>>> no
    >>>> software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    >>>> the USPO got its act together....
    >>> If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task
    >>> or
    >>> other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    >>> But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    >>> patent the mathematics?
    >>>

    >>
    >> No one gets a patent on "the mathematics" -- that's a straw-man argument
    >> commonly used by people do belittle the significance of new and inventive
    >> **applications** of mathematics. Like Google's method of determining the
    >> relevance of Web pages in relation to search queries:
    >>
    >> http://www.news.com/2100-1024-986204.html
    >>
    >> Why should a unique mathematical formula like this be any less patentable
    >> than a unique chemical formula? Or a unique mechanical design?

    >
    > Provided it is indeed unique and Google does not sue others because their
    > software does the same thing (whether more or less effectively)...
    >


    Google's patent is published for all to see:

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...txt&S1=google.ASNM.&OS=an/google&RS=AN/google

    For you to suggest that this is not a unique invention is disingenous -- you
    know better. If others discover a different method to accomplish "the same
    thing" , then so be it. Patent protection does not foreclose the opportunity
    to build a better search engine -- it only forbids poaching that specific
    design.

    > In this case the formula is or should be easily copyrighted and a
    > copyright should and would be more than adequate.
    >


    Copyright only prohbits unauthorized copying, modification, or distribution
    of original authored works. It does not provide inventors of a formula (or
    anything else) the right to exclude others from **using** it -- indeed,
    copyright encourages such use. Just what do you suppose Google's market
    capitalsation would be these days if it had simply published its proprietary
    search engine formulas on the web under copyright?
     
    impossible, Jan 15, 2008
    #15
  16. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
    >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:06:28 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I see the value of software copyrights. I don't see the value of
    >>>> software patents.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> A patent is a protection for an idea/invention....so to me having
    >>> software patents has "some" merit....however the issue I really have is
    >>> the existing system is open to abuse...so while I would prefer to see no
    >>> software patents, i would be happy if it became highly restricted and
    >>> the USPO got its act together....

    >>
    >> If the idea/invention is for a new physical device that does some task or
    >> other, perhaps with a software component, then, yeah, give it a patent.
    >> But if it is simply a mathematical sequence, then how can they possibly
    >> patent the mathematics?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > With a physical patent you dont patent the material it is made out
    > of....take a classical example, steam engine reversing gear, there are
    > literally 100s of designs all doing the same thing but with a differing
    > method/action....no one patented the fact these are made out of steel or
    > bronze, or the fact that someone might want to reverse a steam
    > engine.....(my second point).
    >
    > So, I see no difference between an idea that has value being patented if
    > its a physical piece of hardware or a piece of software. Someone thought
    > of the idea, did some work on it and offered it for sale to solve a
    > problem/issue....
    >
    > Where I take great exception to is where someone thought to patent the
    > fact that allowing steam engines to reverse but then producing no or
    > little real method to achieve it and then suing someone who came up with a
    > workable solution independently....
    >


    Facts cannot be patented. Only designs, processes, and products that make
    some original, non-trivial use of facts. Did you have some specific patent
    in mind that you object to?
     
    impossible, Jan 15, 2008
    #16
  17. In article <>, thingy did write:

    > So, I see no difference between an idea that has value being patented if
    > its a physical piece of hardware or a piece of software. Someone thought
    > of the idea, did some work on it and offered it for sale to solve a
    > problem/issue....


    Not all ideas are patentable, no matter how much work you put into them.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 16, 2008
    #17
  18. On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:09:42 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > So, I see no difference between an idea that has value being patented if
    > its a physical piece of hardware or a piece of software. Someone thought
    > of the idea, did some work on it and offered it for sale to solve a
    > problem/issue....


    So someone patents a method of electronically removing "red-eye" from
    photographs taken by cheap cameras, and someone else had come along and
    developed an application that was capable of removing "red-eye" from
    photographs taken by cheap cameras.

    Should such a thing be patented?


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 16, 2008
    #18
  19. Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)

    Richard Guest

    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:

    > So someone patents a method of electronically removing "red-eye" from
    > photographs taken by cheap cameras, and someone else had come along and
    > developed an application that was capable of removing "red-eye" from
    > photographs taken by cheap cameras.
    >
    > Should such a thing be patented?


    If the method was not immediatly obvious then the method should be.
     
    Richard, Jan 16, 2008
    #19
  20. On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:17:04 +1300, Richard wrote:

    >> So someone patents a method of electronically removing "red-eye" from
    >> photographs taken by cheap cameras, and someone else had come along and
    >> developed an application that was capable of removing "red-eye" from
    >> photographs taken by cheap cameras.
    >>
    >> Should such a thing be patented?

    >
    > If the method was not immediatly obvious then the method should be.


    I agree the method *should* be immediately obvious. ;o)


    --
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC), Jan 16, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Gimp discussion currently on Slashdot

    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    561
    Michael Sweet
    May 2, 2004
  2. Peter

    openRAW on slashdot

    Peter, Jun 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    274
    Peter
    Jun 8, 2005
  3. Spuds

    Heads up from Slashdot

    Spuds, Feb 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    516
    Spuds
    Feb 12, 2006
  4. Michael Cargill

    Slashdot on Opera

    Michael Cargill, Oct 14, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    659
  5. thingy
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,129
    ~misfit~
    Dec 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page