Print

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

[Max White]

Also, emulators aren't illegal, AFAIK; pirating games is.

Technically the companies that own the platform have copyright to some of the algorithms used, so yea, they are illegal, unless you own a copy of the console itself.

[Nadaka]

Also, emulators aren't illegal, AFAIK; pirating games is.

Technically the companies that own the platform have copyright to some of the algorithms used, so yea, they are illegal, unless you own a copy of the console itself.

You can not copyright an algorithm. You can't patent it either except under the most perverse interpretation of patent law (which has unfortunately become the standard interpretation).

[Max White]

What..? But. But a program is a type of algorithm. If you can't own the rights to it, how is software piracy even a thing?
I mean look at the rar algorithm, a very well known proprietary algorithm, you can't just use it.

Are you sure on this one Nadaka? I mean you are a lawyer, so you know your law, but everything I know about the programming industry says that is wrong.

[Rose]

Also, emulators aren't illegal, AFAIK; pirating games is.

Technically the companies that own the platform have copyright to some of the algorithms used, so yea, they are illegal, unless you own a copy of the console itself.

You can not copyright an algorithm. You can't patent it either except under the most perverse interpretation of patent law (which has unfortunately become the standard interpretation).

Actually, you can patent an algorithm, but what you can't patent is the output. Somebody can make a different algorithm that does the same thing, and that would be fine. it's only the specific implementation that can be patented.

So you can patent a specific way of keeping time.
You cannot patent time-pieces in general.

So writing a game emulator from scratch is legal.
Ripping the bios from a console and distributing it isn't.

[Putnam]

Yeah, and I've never seen an emulator that does that. Any emulators that actually require the bios usually give you instructions on ripping the bios out of your console... which I won't, of course.

[Max White]

Ok thank god.
I thought everything I knew and loved had come to an end... I don't want to live in a world where a programmer can not own their hard work.

[Nadaka]

Also, emulators aren't illegal, AFAIK; pirating games is.

Technically the companies that own the platform have copyright to some of the algorithms used, so yea, they are illegal, unless you own a copy of the console itself.

You can not copyright an algorithm. You can't patent it either except under the most perverse interpretation of patent law (which has unfortunately become the standard interpretation).

Actually, you can patent an algorithm, but what you can't patent is the output. Somebody can make a different algorithm that does the same thing, and that would be fine. it's only the specific implementation that can be patented.

So you can patent a specific way of keeping time.
You cannot patent time-pieces in general.

So writing a game emulator from scratch is legal.
Ripping the bios from a console and distributing it isn't.

An algorithm is nothing but math. and you are not allowed to patent math. That is until some idiot decided that you can patent using a general purpose computing device to run math. That is why it is an absolute perversion, even if it is technically allowed under the current idiotic patent law.

[Max White]

A painting is nothing but an arrangement of colors, and you can't patent colors.
A tune is nothing but notes, and you can't patent notes.

Nadaka, what you are saying is highly undermining to the work that a lot of people do. An algorithm is the result of much planning and work and testing and sweat by people who deserve credit for what they do.

[Frumple]

Gon be hilarious when someone steals basic addition from public use wotwot.

What will we do,
when they patent two plus two?
Start subtracting negatives.

[Nadaka]

A painting is nothing but an arrangement of colors, and you can't patent colors.
A tune is nothing but notes, and you can't patent notes.

Nadaka, what you are saying is highly undermining to the work that a lot of people do. An algorithm is the result of much planning and work and testing and sweat by people who deserve credit for what they do.

No, really I am not. I don't think you understand what I am saying.

As a matter of fact, you can not patent a painting. Paintings are covered by copyright law. Not patent law. Those are two very very different things.

And algorithms, aka math, aka facts, aka the fundamental laws of nature are subject to neither. Algorithms are not invented, they are discovered. The idea that you can patent or copyright them is as absurd as copyrighting or patenting water.

[SalmonGod]

This is becoming worthy of moving to the dedicated thread for the subject.

[Max White]

You are saying

That is why it is an absolute perversion, even if it is technically allowed under the current idiotic patent law.

You are trying to tell me that an

An algorithm is nothing but math.

You are full of shit.
Lets say I was a chemist and I design a drug. Despite this chemical being nothing more than a series of atoms, I can patent it. I can not patent an element, or most of the organic groups it is composed of, but I can patent my chemical.
This is because it took a long time to produce this and I deserve the rights to my own hard work. Otherwise people stop making medicine because there is no reward in it, and people suffer for it.

Programs, algorithms are the same. If you don't understand why an algorithm is more than math, maybe you need to learn what a programmer does before you try to tell me what it is.

This is becoming worthy of moving to the dedicated thread for the subject.

It is surprisingly fitting with the thread theme.

[Nadaka]

You are saying

That is why it is an absolute perversion, even if it is technically allowed under the current idiotic patent law.

You are trying to tell me that an

An algorithm is nothing but math.

You are full of shit.
Lets say I was a chemist and I design a drug. Despite this chemical being nothing more than a series of atoms, I can patent it. I can not patent an element, or most of the organic groups it is composed of, but I can patent my chemical.
This is because it took a long time to produce this and I deserve the rights to my own hard work. Otherwise people stop making medicine because there is no reward in it, and people suffer for it.

Programs, algorithms are the same. If you don't understand why an algorithm is more than math, maybe you need to learn what a programmer does before you try to tell me what it is.

This is becoming worthy of moving to the dedicated thread for the subject.

It is surprisingly fitting with the thread theme.

I have decades of experience with programming and several years of research into copyright and patent law because those laws are intricately intertwined in my profession to the very core. I know what the fuck I am talking about.

[Max White]

Yea, I expect you would.
That is why I'm so surprised that somebody I respect can actually think that letting people own there work is a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Let's say I make some amazing new algorithm that allows for something pretty useful like say, rendering, significantly faster. Do you mean to tell me I shouldn't have the rights to this, and that my work is just fair game for anybody to take?
Can you honestly say that is moral?

[Vector]

As a math student, yeah, I think that copyright is bad for stuff like this.  The idea of owning and controlling the rights to a theorem is ridiculous.