|
Sorry you stupid. Schubert is art 
|
|
|
|
|
This is a wonderful performance of Aida Garifullina - overshadows the other 2 completely ... nice, even for a metalhead like me ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Very Nice Thanks Too bad the laundry was running part way Quite a voice Re/ the statue I am always stunned by the folds Re/ male voice hard to top Pavarotti imho - Happy Holidays
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how I feel about intellectual property.
I'm not sure I like the idea of it being transferable. After all it doesn't exactly make sense. If I created something using my mind, chances are I can do it again. Even if I can transfer that skill to someone else, *I still have it*. If I "sell you the rights" then I'm basically creating an artificial limit in terms of what I can create. I can no longer create the thing I sold even though I know how.
The other, perhaps more important thing is, I feel like it goes against human advancement. If we're not sharing our knowledge with each other, it is a dramatic waste of humanity's potential. I can't even imagine how much further along STEM would be if we didn't put up artificial barriers around innovation.
On the other hand, I need to eat. My intellectual creations are labor - real work, and I've earned my keep through it.
I wish I could think of a better way to skin this cat.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
A popular way seems to be to publish the source code as "open-source", wait a while until enough people are hooked and have contributed, and then proclaim that there is an "advanced paid version" with all kind of nice extra features 
|
|
|
|
|
I agree entirely about the "transfer" of IP. It's fine to say the new "owner" has the right to use it as they wish. It's the removal of rights from the original creator of the IP that is the issue.
I have, over many years, developed a simple application architecture (a "framework" even) that has allowed me to develop flexible, extensible web applications very quickly and reliably. The code is well-tested and robust, and I can build application-specific functionality on top easily. There are no 3rd party frameworks / tools (other than JQuery at the browser) and, being mine, it suits my style perfectly.
However I've developed and delivered a number of projects for different clients all based on that underlying framework. Each has wanted me to transfer IP rights to them, which I have. But to what extent does the IP reside in that underlying framework? When I "clone" the framework as the basis of a new project, I do tend to rename everything; or at least the name prefixes. So for instance the master page is renamed from MSLMaster.master to LPMaster.master to GPOMaster.master etc depending on if the client is MSL, LP or GPO. I do this largely for my own benefit in fact; I'm often working on multiple projects simultaneously and it can get very confusing if the same object names appear in every project. I also cling (in vain I'm sure) to the hope that since the code is "different" I'm not breaching my own IP agreements! (Thankfully my clients don't overlap functionally and knowing them all pretty well, I doubt very much if they care that I use a common code base. In fact they are aware and are pleased as it means I can deliver reliable software faster and cheaper than writing from scratch...)
|
|
|
|
|
Give me the codez pleaze
|
|
|
|
|
That is why we have different methods of protecting IP:
- Patents give the inventor the right to forbid anyone from using his/her invention, but require disclosure of the invention
- Trade secrets do not require disclosure, but do have other requirements
- Copyright also gives certain protections, but does not prevent someone from reinventing your IP using a different method
- Licensing (exclusive and non-exclusive) may be tailored as you wish.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me, but I don't see how that isn't just different flavors of the same basic problem.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! Pick your choice. You have alternatives. Different flavors of giving your rights away, for different amounts of money, in different ways.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". But lots of lawyers are happy to take people's money to argue that there is. Only the lawyers win.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd argue there *is* such a thing by virtue of the fact that people made it a thing, and there's power involved.
For example, I can invoke the power of the state against me by stealing your employer's "intellectual property"
That's very real. They can at the very least, render a judgment and garnish my wages, or at worst, throw me in jail, probably depending on the particular nature of the stolen IP and the circumstances.
So yeah, intellectual property, even being a social construct, is pretty real.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Take the money and run. 
I just think you are looking at it improperly.
The content of books, for the most part, are "Intellectual Property". We'd still be living in the dark ages without this means of transferring knowledge. Neither you or the people who have agreed with you so far, would ever have learned how to Program without using someone else's "Intellectual Property".
All Art Work, painting, sculpture, music and so on are transfers of intellectual property, using different mediums.
You can retain the rights of personal use as part of the agreement to sell whatever "I.P" you are selling.
Really, take the the money and run.
modified 24-Dec-21 12:42pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what the question is, if any. If it's about the "runaway bus", then the usual solution was to put the source software in escrow for when you do get run over.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so much a question. It's almost a rant, but maybe not quite.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that our current IP system is drastically skewed in favor of the rich, to continue them being rich.
I helped put a patent together for my father this year. In the patent system you have to pay money every few years to 'keep the patent,' and after (16?) years the patent expires and any company can produce what you've designed. If you fail to pay in those (4?) year intervals, other companies can produce away.
Compare this to the copyright system, and you will see that they are both designed to favor 'those with power.' In it the copyright holder is automatically given (70+++?) years to make all the money they can from it.
So companies like Disney can keep a monopoly on stupid drawings, and use their money to snap up produce defaulted patents that don't make it to 16 years. And even if they don't default, after 16 years Disney can continue making their money from copyrights AND branch out to compete with your expired patent, if they wish.
Really makes you wonder who the laws are for...
modified 24-Dec-21 13:03pm.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a wealth of historical information that is in the public domain (out of copyright) that you can mine, and that even Disney et al don't have time to capitalize on. Books, images, maps, correspondence, (govt) statistics, "systems". All FREE for commercial use.
You find "best of issue" on EBay for $750 that are public domain in the Library of Congress. It goes on.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: There's a wealth of historical information that is in the public domain (out of copyright) that you can mine, and that even Disney et al don't have time to capitalize on. Books, images, maps, correspondence, (govt) statistics, "systems". All FREE for commercial use.
However there is also a great deal of stuff that cannot be touched also.
This is because it is small market. And making sure it is legal to use requires tracking down the people (often more than one) that now own the copyright and then negotiating with each of them to allow use of the original. For small markets it is not even close to being economical to do that.
And there is a worse problem. The original material might and probably does only exist in a few remaining printed documents. And when those documents are lost or destroyed the original content is forever lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Patents expire after 20 years in most/all of the Western world. If you make less money on exploiting the patent yourself than the fee you pay to uphold it, why would you hold onto it? If those companies who want to profit from it are unwilling to pay you license fees covering your patent fees, then they do not consider it that essential for their activities. Demand a higher license, and if they are not willing to pay, then your (father's) invention is not that much worth. If you still think it is, no matter what others say: Keep paying the patent fees, even if you can't recover it from licenses.
Copyright: Even a poor author retains the right to his works. He may, for a pay, allow a publisher to take the cost of producing and marketing copies of his works - and he should certainly be aware of the details of the contract. Any author is free to ignore established publishing houses and do the work himself: Contact companies doing the typesetting, graphical artists doing the cover and illustrations, marketing companies and book stores. Or paying for an established publishing house doing it. It often pays to hire in someone professional to take care of your rights when making a contract with a large publisher. In most cases, it pays back.
In technology, 20 years of patent validity usually (there are exceptions!) means that the technology is rather aged when the patent expires. If the patent owner has made real profit on it for that long, it is about time to let others in on it. In lots of cases, new sub-technologies have been added. Look at MP3: The format and decoding was protected for 20 years, but over those years, a whole crop of improved encoding techniques were developed, under their own patents. Today, you may use the original MP3 patents freely. Unless you pay the license fees for the highly improved encoding patents, those MP3 files you encode will have inferior quality compared to state of the art. (Nowadays, we see the same development with AAC files: If you pay for access to the best encoders, you will hear better sound quality at lower bit rates.)
Copyright usually relates to artistic works, not technological progress. You can rarely argue that giving the author the exclusive right to profit on his novel will constrain literary creativity. In major parts of the Western world there is an understanding that not even when the author dies are his novels (and poems and songs and whatever) free for the vultures to take; they are part of the heritage, owned by the heirs, for 70 years.
Honestly, I am not getting what you are driving at. It seems like you both complain about your father's patents expiring after 20 years, and complain about Disney retaining their intellectual rights for 20 years. And you appear unclear about the distinction between technical innovation (patents) and artistic creations (copyright). Well ... Such confusion is common!
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Honestly, I am not getting what you are driving at. It seems like you both complain about your father's patents expiring after 20 years, and...
Yes, you really aren't, because that isn't what I was complaining about.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: ience of King David's Court | Object Oriented Programming with C++
OK, now we know what you are really complaining about. Thanks for explaining.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I should have also given another example of being 'for the rich' that really pisses me off. The patent for insulin is expired (and it was free), but if you try to make insulin off that patent you will get shut down by the FDA because you have to have tons of money to make a 'pure' lab... So the poor people are screwed because the 'rich' don't give a crap about making the world better for them. That is abundantly clear from the prices insulin now goes for in America.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: you will get shut down by the FDA because you have to have tons of money to make a 'pure' lab..
Err...rather certain that one can make a very good case that insuring that medicines are safely made is in fact reasonable.
And other than that any law, rule and/or regulation can be exploited either by finding ways around it or finding ways to restrict fair use due to those in the first place. It is not possible and never will be to both be safe and fair.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: It is not possible and never will be to both be safe and fair.
And that, right there, is the problem. We've allowed our 'bullies' to take control of the market, and they have no regard for the average person. To them, we are just a means of making a profit. As evidenced by insulin prices.
I don't have a problem with insuring the drugs are produced purely. I do have a problem when the entire system is stacked against the regular Joe, who can't access the capital for such costly endeavors like building a lab to make insulin more affordable.
On the bright side, I did hear of a project to change the situation, although I haven't heard word of success yet. Maybe we will slowly eliminate the 'stacked against the average Joe' problem.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
