Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

No matter what you say, mom, I will always love him! :p


Besides.... of course you're right that it's more important to fight for the real thing than to construct a philosophical battle over the meaning of a term. Usually. When you have limited time and resources.

It is my personal experience, though, that the way we speak influences the way we think. Also, the less precise we are in choosing our words, the more likely it is that we run into misunderstandings. (Tell me, is Android a Linux system?)
So choosing our words carefully isn't a bad thing, either. And because in my real life, in my daily conversation, I do have enough time and my resources aren't so limited, no harm's done saying "patents" instead of "intellectual property" and "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". ;)

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

This hair risks being split very, very thinly. :D

I see it as a "pick your battles sort of thing" nonetheless. I still don't have a problem with the concept of an umbrella term for patents/copyrights/trademarks (to refer to them in the abstract) and while sure there's little in the way of resources committed to the hosting of a anti-IP-term manifesto how far does one extend that battle?

Maybe we just need to create a new term though. PaCoTM? :p

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

Part of the harm that could come out of this is the "split hair" (but profoundly important "split hair") difference between something that is owned "property" (ie: I may have bought a physical copy of a book, first ownership doctrine usually applies) and something that is "licensed" (but I don't own the rights to story that the book tells, copyright applies). In either case, the term 'intellectual property' seems like a misnomer to me. To my understanding, the US Constitution spells out a lot of legal intellectual rights but never confuses them with property rights and, as I understand it, points out that these intellectual rights are limited. Just my two cents to that argument.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

I can see that.

But some seem to misunderstand that there actually is property represented by patents, trademarks and copyrights. They confuse the original protected item with representations, which can be nebulous (content of a book, sound of music, etc). It's a shame this issue gets so bogged down by misunderstandings... but then, I have to blame those who have been steadily bastardizing the original intent for much of that.

EDIT: yeah, your edited post explains it better than I did.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

Here is the entire legal basis of patents and copyrights in the US Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It is very clear about the reasons for them: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
and the means: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Of course one can argue that the means don't meet the purpose today or that the limited times are not so limited, but this is where it all starts.

Regarding "Intellectual Property: I dislike the term intellectual property because it isn't really so much property as a government granted monopoly and it is overly broad. There are astonishingly few cases where one needs to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks as a single thing. They are more dissimilar than similar. IP is like discussing how to regulate birds and airplanes under the term "air traffic." Sure they both fly, but one would hardly want a uniform legal system for both birds and airplanes. (Should we fine birds for not getting proper pilot's licenses? Or should it be the responsibility of the municipality or the local birdwatcher association to get licenses for the birds to fly?) None of these questions make any sense unless you're thinking of both birds and planes as "air traffic". Patents !~ copyrights !~ trademarks.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

Has there been any kind of "official" update about this matter?

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

I disagree with the statement and the analogy (that's a real reach). I think they are more similar than they are different in purpose, which is where they tend to be abstracted and aggregated as "intellectual property".

And again, the term property really is valid despite whatever heartburn it may cause. Contrary to common opinion, patents, trademarks and copyrights do not protect ideas but rather renderings of ideas. This is not something ethereal. You will not usually be granted protection under any of the three unless you have something tangible or a very solid case for something tangible.

There are of course stupid exceptions like business process patents (eg, Amazon one-click) which I think we can all agree should be abolished. Same for these absurdly long protection periods that are counter to the original purpose.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

There's been no new information shared publically about the situation. I haven't received any new information privately either.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

The originally intended purpose of copyrights and patents share some similarities, but trademark law is not intended to incentivize production or sharing of writings and discoveries. Trademarks are intended to avoid confusion between competing goods. It isn't in the public interest to have Microsoft branding Windows Mobile as "Linux" because it isn't. That has little to do with encouraging people to contribute to Linux development.
The term property implies excludability. Property may apply to the containers, which are naturally scarce. However the *information* on those containers isn't. This is why, regardless of one's opinion on filesharing, comparing it to theft is somewhat silly. In order to steal something, you have to deprive someone of that thing. If you steal a bike, that person no longer has the bike. If you make a copy of a file, you have two people with the file. The reason why this is illegal has nothing to do with theft, but with the fact that the government has granted a monopoly on the right to reproduce that data.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

That's a bit disheartening. I was all for calm & let's wait approach last friday and weekend. Now after two full working days, at least in Nokialand, and no official update. Not even "we are still working at it". Starting to agree with people who critized Nokia's approach to informing community.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

I'm not going to split the hair further over IP semantics, but the weak rationalizing above starts a slippery slope. That's a dangerously disingenuous argument that, sorry, I just can't take seriously. For a minute there I thought you actually understood the subject...

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

I think where you're getting caught up is the idea that something is property because it can be used to get income. I never made any statements about this aspect. The reason it often gets confused with theft, is that the person who received the shared file has a copy but hasn't paid the copyright holder. This is the domain of copyright infringement.
In my personal opinion, I think that copyright holders get a little too worked up about it. There's lots of evidence showing that filesharing can actually be used to increase sales of the scarce goods, and not a lot (studies with dubious-at-best methodologies aside) supporting the case that it is hurting the growing media industries. In the case of making a copy, the copyright holder may not gain anything or only gain indirectly, but they also haven't lost anything either.

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

how do i install the emulator file, please help me

Re: Nintendo maybe going to court for N900 Nintendo emulators.
 

Just put the file in N900 memory and tap it open in filemanager. :)