Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 1 day ago -
Porting apps to Leste (44)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by norayr - 1 day, 4 hrs ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (35)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by smatkovi - 4 days, 1 hr ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (13)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 4 days, 23 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) - (treltexx) (79)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days ago -
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 5 days, 5 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-11-30
, 22:14
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#82
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
This hair risks being split very, very thinly.
No matter what you say, mom, I will always love him!
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".
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?
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 |
|
2009-11-30
, 22:30
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#83
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
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.
I see what Gnu is saying, but I also think the term "IP" is in and of itself innocuous. I see no harm per se in an umbrella term for copyright, patents and trademarks and feel that some of the ire is much ado about nothing.
Last edited by danramos; 2009-11-30 at 22:37.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-11-30
, 22:38
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#84
|
Originally Posted by danramos
I can see that.
Part of the harm that could come out of this is the "split hair" (but profoundly important "split hair") difference between something that is "property" and something that is "licensed."
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.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Last edited by Texrat; 2009-11-30 at 22:44.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-12-01
, 00:25
|
|
Posts: 148 |
Thanked: 92 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#85
|
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.
"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.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dmj726 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-12-01
, 15:11
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#86
|
Has there been any kind of "official" update about this matter?
|
|
2009-12-01
, 15:48
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#87
|
Originally Posted by dmj726
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".
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.
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.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
| The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-12-01
, 15:49
|
|
Posts: 2,669 |
Thanked: 2,555 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#88
|
Originally Posted by Rauha
There's been no new information shared publically about the situation. I haven't received any new information privately either.
Has there been any kind of "official" update about this matter?
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zerojay For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-12-01
, 16:03
|
|
Posts: 148 |
Thanked: 92 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#89
|
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.
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.
| The Following User Says Thank You to dmj726 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-12-01
, 16:17
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#90
|
Originally Posted by zerojay
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.
There's been no new information shared publically about the situation. I haven't received any new information privately either.
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".