Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

I'd just like to point out the logical fallacy of saying that people wouldn't be payed if copy protection wasn't enforced - people would still be selling and people would still be buying the unnamed product, the profits just wouldn't go to the original creator,

Exactly - as I said, only those who actually manufacture goods will make money.  The photoshop artist does not print the pages of the comic book he paints the artwork for, nor does the person who does the original pencil sketch of the pages.  Sculptors would be one of the few sorts of artist that could actually make money.

Edit- sorry, meant this to be part of the previous post.

[Virex]

So according to your travelling salesman example, a new mathematical algorithm is patentable.

Depends if you consider an aglorithm to be an invention or a discovery. I'd label fundamental mathamatics under discoveries and applied mathamatics under inventions. So in that case, such an aglorithm could indeed be patentable. I don't see why it shouldn't be, unless the state decides that it is an exception (such as brazil did with inventions based upon Indian lore, making synthesis methodes for active ingredients found in plants used by shamans largely inpattentable)

This smells like bio-patenting.

Oppinions differ about Bio-patenting. I miself view any known gene sequence to be a discovery and thus not novel, which means no patents on human genes. But if someone'd make a new gene sequence to make bacteria produce a certain substance, then I'd say that gene was invented, after all someone worked on making it himself

I think patents and copyright should be applicable only to specific, applied things, not ideas or natural principles.
Newton didnt patent gravity nor will the Higgs boson be patented by CERN, likewise nor should biocompanies patent genes or whole organisms. They could patent applications derived from using the gene, such as improved PCR or a possible cure, but barring others from using the gene in their research is wrong. Like patenting a new slang word and then preventing others from using it in lyrics or commercials.
(eg DNA is just a language)

Actualy you can't patent anything you discover, only things you invent (Or at least that's how most contries besides the US implement it). There's quite a difference between the two. You can't invent a fundamental particle for example, it has always been around. One of the core ideas of patent law is that you can't patent what's already availible and that includes gravity. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the first part of my reply, implementing such a discovery (as in implementing fundamental new mathamatical insights into a hyper-efficient way to generate random noise) is an invention, pretty much the definition of it and as such should be patentable.

[Areyar]

[Rambling ion from previous entry]

Ideas and natural facts should not be patentable.
(The writer of Jurasic park does not own the patent for cloning dinosaurs from amber. If the author had achieved success with his described method, then fine.)
Similarly to historical facts, discovered facts of nature should be exempt from patenting.
Arguments against this would include that companies then would sit on discoveries in order to gain a headstart on designing applications based on the discoveries, but this is happening anyhow so no change there.
Industrial espionage is rife, so the most powerful competitors know of eachother what each is working on anyhow, so the only ones that are missing out are independent or academic researchers that don't have the funds to spy or buy patented materials.
---
@pixels are only data and not new: well yes, this would be copyrighted not patented, copyright affixes to a creative work, not the method. Though this IP was meant to protect creators from inscrupulous companies massproducing their work without compensation, not to grant those same companies eternal control over that work or derived products.

---
going back to the cyclechain: how does a patent on a variation of the original patent prevent a competitor from using the expired first patented design?
If the second patent covers the first, then it is not sufficiently different, but if it qualifies, a competitor could deposit a similar variation on patent 1 and steal the patent.

---
I hear you saying that killing patenting and IP is not the solution to the abuse, it is interesting that those benefiting from such abuse are it's strongest advocates. (And are also lobbying for perversion of privacy law to police their interests)

edit: that came out wrong: am agating against publishers, not you personally.

[LegoLord]

Ideas and natural facts should not be patentable.
(The writer of Jurasic park does not own the patent for cloning dinosaurs from amber. If the author had achieved success with his described method, then fine.)

And he doesn't, actually.  It's the execution of the idea he holds credit for (among other people who contributed to the making of the movie).

An idea for a book is one thing, the execution of its writing is another.  For example, a couple of people tried to sue J.K. Rowling for making a book series with wizards on a train, and those same wizards playing chess - why?  Because their grandad wrote a book with those ideas in it.  But they lose, because Harry Potter is written nothing like that book.  That book, from what I hear, was utter crap (as far as writing goes).

This is why if you simply go up and shout "I have an idea for a game!", anyone who knows anything about game development will ask:  "Got a design document written up for it?"  I've been trying to write a GDD, and trust me, the idea is the easy part.

[dragnar]

So according to your travelling salesman example, a new mathematical algorithm is patentable.

Depends if you consider an aglorithm to be an invention or a discovery. I'd label fundamental mathamatics under discoveries and applied mathamatics under inventions. So in that case, such an aglorithm could indeed be patentable.

What? How could anyone patent an algorithm? That's like saying Newton could have patented calculus and forbidden anyone else from using it. Fundamental or applied, an idea should not be patentable. If an idea can be patented, then perhaps I should try to patent the hydrogen fuel cell, or heck, the internal combustion engine. A program written to use the algorithm should be patentable, the mathematical concept should not.

[Virex]

So according to your travelling salesman example, a new mathematical algorithm is patentable.

Depends if you consider an aglorithm to be an invention or a discovery. I'd label fundamental mathamatics under discoveries and applied mathamatics under inventions. So in that case, such an aglorithm could indeed be patentable.

What? How could anyone patent an algorithm? That's like saying Newton could have patented calculus and forbidden anyone else from using it. Fundamental or applied, an idea should not be patentable. If an idea can be patented, then perhaps I should try to patent the hydrogen fuel cell, or heck, the internal combustion engine. A program written to use the algorithm should be patentable, the mathematical concept should not.

The criterion is usualy "Direct aplicability in the industry" and as such usualy extends to sorting, datamining, picture processing, raytracing, vector graphics and specific implementations in the hard/software for processing data using existing mathamatical principles. Newton couldn't have patented calculus, though Perlin could have patented his noise. This is because in the industry, calculus isn't a part of the method, while generating convincing noise is a direct part of generating 2D and 3D art. What is patentable is am particular implementation of calculus in software to optimise the controll scheme of a chemical plant.

Also, ignoring for a moment that fuell cells are not novel any more, you could in theory try to patent the fuell cell, but you'd probably get slapped for filing a patent that's too broad. Something like "A system for generating a potential through an electrochemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen over an anode-kathode system seperated by a number of ion-permeable layers" could have a chance, but you'll still have to provide sufficient specifications so that an average person working in the field of electrochemical engeneering could build a fuell cell using your description. As you can see, it's a balancing act between making the patent as broad as possible and till providing enough specifications for it to be admited.

On the field of computer programs, there is actualy a pretty nifty clause in the EU patent laws, which says that you can't patent a computer program as-is. This means that you can't patent the program itself, only the methodes for solving a problem contained within the code. You can't patent a type-writer, but you can patent methodes for handling text more efficiently. This is also quite an inversion of what you original thought, The point here is that an aglorithm is a specific methode to solve a problem in a technical way. you're not solving any direct problems with calculus, nor is it directly aplicable in the industry, but the Fast Fourier Transformation could be patentable, assuming it isn't to broad and ignoring that it's not novel, since it's a specific aglorithm for decomposing a signal into it's frequencies. It's also a big speed improvement over the normal fourier transformation to boot.

Ideas and natural facts should not be patentable.
(The writer of Jurasic park does not own the patent for cloning dinosaurs from amber. If the author had achieved success with his described method, then fine.)
Similarly to historical facts, discovered facts of nature should be exempt from patenting.

They arn't. There is one exceptiona dn that's DNA, within the US. In all other cases, discoveries arn't patentable, because you can only patent inventions and discoveries arn't inventions. I don't get where you got the idea that you can patent a higs boson, because anyone could tell you that's not how it works.

In the case of Jurasic park, it's somewhat different, since the methode of cloning dinosaurs from ancient DNA is actualy patentable, since it is a specific methode for doing something, similar to how you could patent a new way to extrusion mould a plastic cup. If the writer had a sufficiently strong description of a process that might work, then he could patent it. Note that such a patent would in no way interfere with artists writing about it, since a patent only extends to the physical implementation. That's where copyright comes in and that can be circumvented if you know what you're doing.

Arguments against this would include that companies then would sit on discoveries in order to gain a headstart on designing applications based on the discoveries, but this is happening anyhow so no change there.

True, but nobody forbids the other companies from discovering the same thing. It only gives people more incentive to do research

Industrial espionage is rife, so the most powerful competitors know of eachother what each is working on anyhow, so the only ones that are missing out are independent or academic researchers that don't have the funds to spy or buy patented materials.

Academic researches typicaly have a pretty good grasp of what's going on in the big companies. They usualy don't know the details though. This is because companies usualy patent important inventions, but to provide sufficient background they'll have to disclose a rudimentery description of the process/object and background literature. You can't realy get a patent on hidden material, so if you keep your research closed for too long you run the risk that someone else patents the aplications first.

going back to the cyclechain: how does a patent on a variation of the original patent prevent a competitor from using the expired first patented design?
If the second patent covers the first, then it is not sufficiently different, but if it qualifies, a competitor could deposit a similar variation on patent 1 and steal the patent.

The simple awnser is that said variation doesn't cover the original patent. What usualy happens is called Evergreening and it's most common in the pharmaceutical industry. The trick is that they patent a bunch of things related to a single drug in order to make the patent lifetime overlap, lenghtening the net time a product contains something that is patented by quite some time.
So in the case of the bike chain, the patent holder doesn't actualy file a patent on a variation, but patents another, relevant part of the chain so the chain has another patent running. For example, at first the manufacturer patents the way the grooves are shaped, then later on he patents all viable methods for shaping the grooves, extending the total time the chain has a patent on it.

This however doesn't prevent a competitor from trumping the chain with a beter chain, it just prevents the whole chain from becoming public for some extra time. The original patent still voids after 20 years (assuming the company keeps on renewing it up to that point). Also, if a competitor finds a way to circumvent the second patent, the first patent isn't going to help anymore, since it already expired/got dropped. Also note that this has to be done in a very carefull way, because if you screw up, the patent can't be granted because it's already in your product that's on the market and thus no longer novel.

I hear you saying that killing patenting and IP is not the solution to the abuse, it is interesting that those benefiting from such abuse are it's strongest advocates. (And are also lobbying for perversion of privacy law to police their interests)

edit: that came out wrong: am agating against publishers, not you personally.

That's it! You're not getting near my lab anymore! Damn hippy!

Anyway, that's because those that don't benefit strongly from it, just don't have a lot of incentive to argue in favour of it and a lot of free games to entice them to argue against it
Besides that, someone has to stand up for an inventor's/developer's/publisher's right to gain compensation for his hard work and who better then he himself to do that

[Areyar]

So according to your travelling salesman example, a new mathematical algorithm is patentable.

Depends if you consider an aglorithm to be an invention or a discovery. I'd label fundamental mathamatics under discoveries and applied mathamatics under inventions. So in that case, such an aglorithm could indeed be patentable.

What? How could anyone patent an algorithm? That's like saying Newton could have patented calculus and forbidden anyone else from using it. Fundamental or applied, an idea should not be patentable. If an idea can be patented, then perhaps I should try to patent the hydrogen fuel cell, or heck, the internal combustion engine. A program written to use the algorithm should be patentable, the mathematical concept should not.

I agree with you, I misworded that completely insideout! (My only excuse is some extreme slowdown is bugging my netbook...it sucks. Also I wasnt paying much attention. )


Patenting the boson was intended as a negative example.

Anyhow, I just havent got a clue. I just find the whole business sordid.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Agdune]

So... we're roughly at a consensus on patenting? I can't really pick anything to bring up that hasn't been allready, unless we want to address Blacken's trolling or something.

[LegoLord]

I'm a little behind on the discussion, but your analogy here is flawed. The difference with intellectual property is that when you steal it, you don't take it away from anybody. You make a copy. When you steal a pot or a car or any physical object, you rob somebody of something. With piracy of this sort, you don't take anything away from them. You DO, however, fail to compensate somebody for work they've done in both cases, and that, too, is wrong. It's just not wrong to pirate data for all the same reasons it's wrong to burglarize a house.

Imagine if enough people pirated so that the person who created it doesn't receive enough compensation to make the project worthwhile - i.e., they make no profit at all, or even a loss.  Then the two situations would be effectively the same. 

If there was no copyright, why would anyone provide compensation?

[Areyar]

Did you donate to Toady?
(I feel you are a good person, so I'll assume you did)
Why?

[LegoLord]

Toady has copyright on DF.  As popular as it is (which, let's face it, isn't very on the grand scale), several people would just download the program and try selling it or offering it for free on other sites.  Lots of people could be introduced to the game, and there'd be no way for anyone to know Toady was the original author - that is, if there was no copyright.

Besides, he's an independent game developer - one that works on his own.  The sort of team that could churn out a full game with modeled graphics in a couple of years couldn't possibly make a living off donations like Toady does.  They wouldn't have a chance of getting advertising, and if it did manage even a small amount of popularity some jerk would take it and sell it as their own.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Agdune]

Unfortunately, relying on people's sense of generosity can't support most organisations, only specific examples of a devoted hobbyist who's doing something he loves anyway. (Though, put that way, I wish more devs were like that... brings me back to the 'does it matter if people who aren't producing something worthwhile have to stop making things that aren't worthwhile' tangent...)

That model of income is extremely unreliable anyway, I honestly am surprised Toady's donations are as consistent as they are. I can only donate maybe once a year for example? Far, far more than I've spent on any single game but it's not much in the long run.

[Urist McOverlord]

Now I'm prepared to contribute the royal hell out of this piracy discussion.
I'll keep my arguments localized to video games, because I am in no way informed about the nuances of the music industry.

Simply put, piracy is wrong. But I'll get to my arguments on that in a second here.

Number one: piracy is not theft. A pirated copy does not equal a lost sale. If someone were to come out with an absolutely unbeatable DRM scheme, and apply it to everything, sales would not skyrocket. And every pirated copy of Barbie Horse Adventures does not mean that a legitimate copy vanishes from store shelves. Piracy != theft. However, piracy is still wrong for much the same reasons.

All this data that makes up the game was made by somebody. The product that that person, or team of people has/have created has obviously interested you enough to get it. In a non-technology situation, the inventor makes the "Awesome-Tec 10,000+", offers it for 3.99, and the customer (that's you and me) has to decide whether or not the Awesome-Tec is worth that much. If not, we do without. In the non-digital situation, you choose to pay, or go without. Or steal, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that enough people consider actual theft to be wrong that I don't need to go through the trouble of proving it.

Now, by pirating, you get the product, but the creator does not get their reward. The pirate may not agree that "ShooterGame3000" is worth what the (often absurd) companies are selling it for, but unlike those buying non-digital products, the medium makes piracy a very enticing offer, far more so than theft. There's also the issue of "piracy is not theft," that I arrived at earlier. None of that changes the fact that you get the product without giving the creator any credit. If I buy something like a car, then I'm not just making sure that the dealer who's gouging the prices gets to eat his caviar tonight, I'm expressing my thanks to the engineer who designed the car to be as fuel efficient as possible, to have eleventy-trillion cup holders, and made it look awesome. I'm showing appreciation for the product by purchasing it. If I didn't think that all the great little things that the engineer put into the car made it worth a concievable price, then I go without. By refusing to repay the design team who makes the game, but still play the game and enjoy it, then I am no better than someone who steals a car.

Now of course, the digital vs. tangible product differentiation also creates other problems, most of which turn into counterarguments. I'll examine some of those next.

1: "Information wants to be free!"

This argument makes me angry. No. A game, or song, or movie is not "information." It is a product. Somebody has created it for the purpose of making money to continue and enrich their lives. If you had pirated a set of encyclopedias, this might be a valid argument, as the ideas and information contained therein are not proprietary. But just because the product expresses itself as a sequence of zeroes and ones does not turn it into "information." Don't try to apply freedom-of-speech thinking to justify piracy of a product. You know, those things that people make so that they can get paid. You know, to eat.

2: "I just want to try it. If I like it, then I'll go out and pay for it."

Number one, with any product, especially games, you can come up with a good reason that it's not worth what you paid.
This also provides an interesting counterpoint. I will, however give you that game demos need to be better. By the end of the demo, you should have a feel for gameplay, a sense of the story, and enough info to determine whether or not you should pay for it. Nonetheless, none of that justifies piracy.

3: "I don't have enough money."

And yet you continue to sit with a hobby that requires you to pay that money? Even if you do continue to game, there's way more out there than the expensive  AAA games. There's the indy scene, free flash games, hell there's even our own Dwarf Fortress for gods sake. If you've truly exhausted every bit of play from that, then you have not added enough magma.

4: "The DRM! Oh, gods, the DRM!"

If you pirate to make a statement about DRM, then you are sadly a part of the problem. Yes, DRM sucks. It is the Bane of PC gaming, the epitome of gamer issues, and it is number one on the list of "Things that pissed me off today." Every. Single. Day. But by pirating it, you are part of the problem! Let us not forget that DRM is at it's heart an anti-piracy measure. If you really want to make a statement about it, do without. Let the companies know that there are those who will not use these measures, and that it is those companies who will get your money. But by pirating the game, all you do is reaffirm their arguments. Those who use the pirated copy to get around obtrusive DRM measures are still effectively reaffirming the arguments in favor of those measures, even if it is unintentional.

5: "I can't find the game any other way."

If you have tried to find it in stores, used, traded in, on legitimate online sources, and through ancient voodoo rituals, then you have a valid case. But if you give it a cursory try, you probably would have pirated anyways, and are making excuses. This same gray area a

Finally, if I may inject someone elses commentary into this argument, as well as some interesting statistics.

So there you go. Feel free to attack, savage, mutilate, and generally beat the crap out of my arguments as you wish. In fact, I look forward to it.