What, so now I can't talk about something that a company thinks it owns?
The question of whether or not people can own ideas or material has been pervasive for a long time (i.e., RIAA lawsuits with intellectual music property, DMCA restrictions on undermining copy protection), and I have to wonder where it's taking us. With the computer, we've seen a mass 'liberation' of thought and media, and a while ago it was considered a good thing that people could have access to culture so easily.
But there have been major arguements as to what should count as a marketable product. Companies are insisting that they should be paid for their wares, and I guess from that viewpoint I agree. They should be paid for what they do. However, if what they do is think of an idea, and then if they tell everybody about that idea, I expect them to not charge me for thinking about it.
I think our culture will go down the drain if it doesn't accept that some things are not private property.
marketable. that's a pathetic word. prostitutes do the same thing.
corperations and many businesses that think they own the information simply because they keep it private, and when someone hints at the similiarity of any idea they sue until that company can't afford it anymore because they're paranoid and refuse to even think about changing their own business methods.
this world is pathetic and becoming more so as the years and laws become even more intolerable. what are we to do. ignore them. and keep mov
It's taking us nowhere. All ideas are built on previous ideas and the reason they are built at all is to get ahead. When a small group owns the latest ideas then (a) no-one else can build on them for their own gain and (b) the owning group has no incentive to.
There is no moral justification for granting exclusive ownership to someone - it implies that they alone were responsible for the idea rather than it being a product of every idea and event preceding it and that it wouldn't have been reached by others for the same reason.
----- There is no moral justification for granting exclusive ownership to someone ----- Pardon me but I disagree. I spent 4 years working for a major pharmaceutical company as the FNG (fsckin' new guy). I'm a gunner, an alpha, an overachiever. My management picked up on this very quickly. Every time I had a new idea which addressed a problem on a project or outlined a method of designing a pharmaceutical I was wholistically beat down. I was verbally harassed, told to mind my own business, and bitz-slapped
Ahhh, pharmaceuticals. You have a valid point and I have considered this but I was just addressing the previous comment and I didn't have much time.
The thing that the pharmaceuticals industry illustrates (although it can apply to other areas) is a particular scenario - a high level of effort to make something possible and then a much lower level of effort to produce it - a good parrallel to the software industry too. And this was long ago the original justification for patents - why should anyone put ti
The bill states that anyone can independently compile their own database, even if it contains the same information that is in someone else's database. It is not the information but its arrangement in a database that is being protected.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:2)
corperations and many businesses that think they own the information simply because they keep it private, and when someone hints at the similiarity of any idea they sue until that company can't afford it anymore because they're paranoid and refuse to even think about changing their own business methods.
this world is pathetic and becoming more so as the years and laws become even more intolerable. what are we to do. ignore them. and keep mov
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's taking us nowhere. All ideas are built on previous ideas and the reason they are built at all is to get ahead. When a small group owns the latest ideas then (a) no-one else can build on them for their own gain and (b) the owning group has no incentive to.
There is no moral justification for granting exclusive ownership to someone - it implies that they alone were responsible for the idea rather than it being a product of every idea and event preceding it and that it wouldn't have been reached by others for the same reason.
Try this [slashdot.org] to hear it put better.
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:1)
There is no moral justification for granting exclusive ownership to someone
-----
Pardon me but I disagree. I spent 4 years working for a major pharmaceutical company as the FNG (fsckin' new guy). I'm a gunner, an alpha, an overachiever. My management picked up on this very quickly. Every time I had a new idea which addressed a problem on a project or outlined a method of designing a pharmaceutical I was wholistically beat down. I was verbally harassed, told to mind my own business, and bitz-slapped
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:1)
Ahhh, pharmaceuticals. You have a valid point and I have considered this but I was just addressing the previous comment and I didn't have much time.
The thing that the pharmaceuticals industry illustrates (although it can apply to other areas) is a particular scenario - a high level of effort to make something possible and then a much lower level of effort to produce it - a good parrallel to the software industry too. And this was long ago the original justification for patents - why should anyone put ti
Re:Hasavoosavah?!?!? (Score:1)