2012-06-28, 18:32 | Link #41 | |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Quote:
Look, we all agree that current society is not ideal. But stop and think about what you're claiming.. Going back to even less ideal days is not the answer. You know this, right?
__________________
|
|
2012-06-28, 18:37 | Link #42 | |
Banned
|
Changing one law, does not rewind human evolution, unless of course you believe that this one law is the sole reason for human progress.
If you ignore music, films, smartphones, the internet... yeah only software remains Quote:
What seems unintuitive to mainstream practices is not by default dangerous and risky... it can very well be effective and ground-breaking. Radical solutions (abolish patents) can be better than conservatives ones (stop reselling them) and both certainly better than not solving a problem (keep patents as are). |
|
2012-06-28, 18:56 | Link #44 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Let now ask, not allowing individuals and companies to buy and sell patents will bring about the armageddon you implied earlier? Is copyleft promoting at least equally innovation? Historically speaking having patented typography would make it more widespread, efficient, and so on? |
|
2012-06-29, 01:23 | Link #45 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-06-29, 11:13 | Link #46 |
Banned
|
Hardware, and electrical engineering in general, has a lot of problems with research, partially because of patents, more so though because of the commercialization of education and for many years now just recycles old technology instead of researching feasible new one.
In all technological sectors patents inflate the cost of using any known technology to improve a products quality without offering any benefit to the product itself with inevitable result of producing expensive, less and worse products. In addition to these problems, the high cost of acquiring the right to use a patented technology is so high that does not let small companies that can offer better products to compete with mega-corprorations that spend their resources into acquiring the right of using old tech instead of researching new ones. The only recent examples I can recall of breaking this vicious circle was Microsoft, copying the windows concept from Apple, making Microsoft a significant software player and earning them the funds to buy political and judicial support to win the patent war, practically destroying Apple; and Apple (in practice NextGen) with iPod, and later iPhone that brought the company back into significance by shamelessly infringing software and hardware patents, and they are still at courts. Current software and hardware giants are also redistributing their resources in trade patents as well as in their lawyers to defend their numerous infringement cases. Acting like the decadent investment banking sector with technology as their excuse for another form of legal gambling Moving to games, funny you mentioned it, since most use OpenGL which is free and open-sourced. As for office suites, should the protectionist policies of Microsoft stop for them like they did for their browser, they will immediately lose their market share. Databases is another example... outside the finance sector commercial ones are simply non-existent due to their development cost. MySQL and Java (the only free products of Sun) were also its only profitable departments, while all their commercial arms had losses for years. Look I think we more or less can agree with the problems that patents and copyright create, as well as that it is easy to just ignore them (legally by buying them, and illegally by moving operations into countries where they don't apply) if the funds exist. The problem is that these two systems take resources away from the scientist, which is exactly the opposite from what they evangelize of doing under the fatalistic excuse that this is how the world is (more or less what aohige has been writing). |
2012-06-29, 13:48 | Link #48 | ||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Indeed he is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2012-06-29, 16:20 | Link #49 | |||||
Banned
|
Here you go... all the parts addressing your question...
Spoiler for quotations:
Quote:
Quote:
That would be the mouse, not the touchscreen, hand gestures, and some other minor patents I was talking about. Quote:
Quote:
Office suites on the other hand are the less technical products, and advertisement of useless features is their selling point... not to mention Excel still can not parse correctly grammatically correct XML, Office for mac is full of bugs, and their C++ compiler can not even comply with the 99 standard 15 years later Quote:
Why, they will magically disappear |
|||||
2012-06-29, 18:30 | Link #50 | ||||||||||||||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, what do you mean by "tiny fraction"? Because a quick Google search gives Microsoft's budget as 8 to 10 billion dollars, and their legal one as 10 times less. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And it's not (solely, or even mainly) because of patents. It's a side effects of the systems we've put into place to make sure we're not being sold snake oil. It's nice that doctors still see what they do as a public service. It's nice that governments fund a lot of research. I'm not sure what to think about the fact that there's never enough top rated surgeons for everyone. But you can't expect all those to hold true for consumer electronics. Quote:
Quote:
[quote] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's not an absolute rule, obviously. But the exceptions aren't enough to build a functioning society. Quote:
Quote:
In contrast, how much time elapsed between the first glass lenses and the first telescope? I'm not saying that patents would have accelerated the process. I am, however, wondering about that golden technological age of yours. Quote:
I'll also remark that your ideals are all very well, but regardless of patent laws, some things take millions or billions before you have a sellable product. And that you still haven't addressed that point. Quote:
Oh, sure, you could claim you've found some indy gem whose plot and gameplay outshine everything. But be serious: there's a reason game companies survive, and we're not all playing some free version of sudoku. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2012-06-29, 20:12 | Link #51 |
Banned
|
So I answered your questions several times already, it's just that you and aohige are not persuaded by the arguments... so please don't write again that I evade the question, disagreeing and ignoring are two very different things. Discussion between arguing parties has the purpose of enriching our understanding, improving and occasionally altering our mindset, and enlightening the audience... diverting attention, ignoring and twisting each others arguments does not fulfill any of those purposes.
Now instead of going in circles, let me ask clearly... do you guys believe that the current patent and copyright laws promote technology and benefit the scientists and inventors? Not if you think that what I and others consider a better alternative is better, just if the current one that you support is fulfilling even in principle its alleged purpose. Also about the history of innovation. Almost all scientific and technological development were made without any laws privatizing and/or nationalizing them. Form speech, to writing systems, lightning fires... to typography, all transportation systems, programming languages... to the recipes for food and drinks. And those are far more important than the modern patented ones. Keep in mind that I am arguing against both systems in principles; the main problem I perceive with both laws is that they promote financial oligarchies and monopolies as well as state protectionism. In this context I am arguing against them, and under the assumption that a globalized even partially free works patents and copyright prohibit innovation and technological development. In effect patents and copyright end up almost immediately from the hands of engineers and scientists that should benefit from them in those of investors that alone have a steady financial gain. Now you want to believe that those many in large is reinvested, you can continue believing it, but I have a very different experience from all the companies I have worked in (independent of size). Also money not wasted on buying patents or wasted in legal power struggles, even if spent of advertisement is better, since that sector can benefit more scientists and developers. But realistic speaking if people become the resource (by not allowing the sale of the right to implement their work) they will benefit more and constantly from it, while now they don't since their work is dissociated financially from them and ends up as another product abused by people who are incapable of producing anything. Now very quicly on the examples:
|
2012-06-30, 14:40 | Link #52 | ||||||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
By the way, since there may be a misunderstanding, the question isn't "will there still be innovation without patents?", but "how will companies make money off investing in innovation?". I (and why was I the one who had to do it?) explained how it's done in some software. You didn't touch the subject except to say you preferred cheap music and old movies. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Patents exist so there's an incentive to make something that's expensive to research, but cheap to reproduce. So innovators aren't in direct competition against people who are only good at aping others for cheap (all the more cheap that they don't need to invest in R&D...). That doesn't describe every technology or creation, but it describes a lot of them. Any replacement system will have to offer a solution to that problem. |
||||||||||||
2012-06-30, 14:43 | Link #53 |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
I can understand Copyright expiration dates for INVENTIONS, where an inventor/patent holder is granted a lifetime.
How about Copyright expiration dates for MEDIA? Considering the vast quantity of media creation vs actual inventions -- the expiration dates for media should be MUCH MUCH SHORTER.
__________________
|
2012-06-30, 15:08 | Link #54 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
But who cares if you can't use the Beatles for your "please hold the line" music? (My personal opinion is that I don't care either way as long as anime and movies keep coming, and they don't need copyright to last forever for that. Culture will sort itself out.) |
||
2012-06-30, 17:20 | Link #55 |
Banned
|
@Anh_Minh: I can understand why your fear of change is driving you to ignore any form of constructive criticism, but that does not mean that you are right... you want to believe that patents and copyright are the only tools humans have to evolve their civilization... I don't think so for the reasons I mentioned, if you or anyone else needs a clarification, well ask, don't discard half-way through trying to think how to invalidate them before even thinking about them
|
2012-06-30, 18:03 | Link #56 |
Also a Lolicon
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
Why isn't more cultural products better than the long term financial interests of one hit wonders?
If copyrights take forever to run out, a lazy ass can make one really good cultural product and keep reaping the rewards for the rest of their lives. They can also block out people who try to make derivatives of the cultural product indefinitely (I personally think that they shouldn't be able to block derivative works at all, but very short time limits would be acceptable as well). Long copyright is very very bad for creating more cultural products as it puts more restriction on what new cultural products can be created, and does not push for the creation of more cultural products since a cultural product can be milked indefinitely. Short copyright is okay for encouraging creation for now, since some cultural products take a lot of investment that needs to be gotten back somehow, but that is changing as well. -- As for my stance on copyright. Kill it. A few nukes from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Additional copies are practically free to make, thus everyone who wants one should get their own copy. For financing of high cost stuff like big budget movies or games, I suggest a kickstarter-ish system. Patrons who can afford it pay creators to make cultural goods to give out to everyone free of charge. Of course that isn't happening easily. People too invested in the current system are busily resisting change. |
2012-06-30, 18:23 | Link #57 |
Banned
|
I refrained from mentioning it, but you guys are aware that patents are not awarded to innovations that do what they claim to... there are time-traveling devices, free-energy ones, and a lot more... that's another reason "investors" are so eager to support such a mechanism to lock in secrecy their own research with some cheap fantasy from a lunatic, instead of honest productive work
|
2012-06-30, 18:39 | Link #59 | |||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Here, concrete example: explain to me how they're going to make money off inventing new drugs. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, if all you want is access to a product (rather than selling your own version), get your ass to a library or something. Or heck, just steal it. You want something but don't want to pay for it. Stop making excuses and just try not to get caught. Quote:
Quote:
Short copyright? That could work. (For "short" being a few years... Long enough for 99% of the works to be safely forgotten.) Though I'm not sure how authors are going to take seeing slash fictions of their characters being sold right along their own work as if they were just as legitimate and genuine. I guess it'll depend. No copyright: as with patents, someone will have to find some alternative way to make people invest money, or all we'll be left with will be advertisements. Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2012-06-30 at 19:25. |
|||||||||
2012-06-30, 18:46 | Link #60 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
It's up to you guys to read our opinions and contribute, I don't believe I can try any more to write anything else constructive here given the preachers opposing my opinion... some earlier post (including the first few ones of Anh), actually made me reconsider some of my opinions and confirm a couple of impressions I had with actual facts, but the last couple of days that's not the case. It's one thing to have an opinion and be willing to discuss it, either to enrich it or change it, and another to strive to impose one's own. My intention was and still is to consider an alternative to the deification of money, and that a more altruistic mindset can be at least equally beneficial to the society. Everyone is free to read it as well as the opposing opinions and make his/her own mind. I don't even wish to change the opinion of anyone, rather drive them to think for themselves instead of adapt the most convenient opinion... ... rant-mode-off... damn this thread sucks as it turned out, again I have to defend myself, instead of my opinion... just like AnoHana 15 months ago with almost the same persecutors |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|