Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
I didn't take you for the 'free land' type. Interesting.Phrozenbot wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Are you saying there is no incentive to create new programs in an open source environment?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Yes. Would you like to see how far video games advanced when there was no profit motive?Phrozenbot wrote:
Are you saying there is no incentive to create new programs in an open source environment?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-11 10:21:37)
There's a difference between software patients and software privacy that I think you're alluding to.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Jesus Christ, it is patent, not patient.Harmor wrote:
There's a difference between software patients and software privacy that I think you're alluding to.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Software Patients attempt to patient a process like if Apple attempted to patient "a music delivery application over the internet" and it was awarded to them then no one else could create that without buying a license or paying royalties.
If you software developer you probably already experienced this.
About 10 years ago I worked on a product for a small medical device company and wanted to overlay diopter readings from a live image taken with an instrument. Well our competitor in the field had a software patient so we couldn't put a text number on top of a real image! That's just stupid and thus what Software Patients are, I believe.
No, I believing in licensing still, such as GNU. The best web browser I have ever used was "free" and contributions were from a collective pool of people willing to offer to something greater with their collective minds.JohnG@lt wrote:
I didn't take you for the 'free land' type. Interesting.Phrozenbot wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
The backbone of that browser, ideas and all, was still derived from a profit making company. They simply copied it. Open Office would not exist without Microsoft Office.Phrozenbot wrote:
No, I believing in licensing still, such as GNU. The best web browser I have ever used was "free" and contributions were from a collective pool of people willing to offer to something greater with their collective minds.JohnG@lt wrote:
I didn't take you for the 'free land' type. Interesting.Phrozenbot wrote:
Once a company has no vested interest in a patented product, they might as well release it as open source.
Yeah, that's what I thought it meant. Having a patent is very different to being allowed to plagiarise your work.Harmor wrote:
There's a difference between software patients and software privacy that I think you're alluding to.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Do this. Get rid of any incentive to design new programs. Want a copy of Bad Company 2? Wait a day after release for a competitor to sell it at a fraction of the cost since they didn't have to do any development work themselves. Sounds like a winner of an idea.jsnipy wrote:
do away with software patents, seriously
Software Patients attempt to patient a process like if Apple attempted to patient "a music delivery application over the internet" and it was awarded to them then no one else could create that without buying a license or paying royalties.
If you software developer you probably already experienced this.
About 10 years ago I worked on a product for a small medical device company and wanted to overlay diopter readings from a live image taken with an instrument. Well our competitor in the field had a software patient so we couldn't put a text number on top of a real image! That's just stupid and thus what Software Patients are, I believe.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-09-11 10:33:35)
You'll never be prosecuted for editing a program as you like. Selling your changes is a different story entirely though.Phrozenbot wrote:
Imagine if nothing was open source though. For example, you couldn't submit a security fix without the risk of legal action being taken against you. The reason why IE isn't nearly as bad as it use to be is because Firefox has acquired enough market share from MS that they had to improve their browser unless they want everyone to ditch it.
The licensing can be restrictive, is all I am saying. Open source allows so much contribution. Why shouldn't you be able to modify a program you buy in anyway and use it in anyway you like? I can not think of any other tangible object I can buy where I couldn't dissemble it if I wanted to.
are you trying to seriously suggest that software patents are the reason that MUDS evolved?JohnG@lt wrote:
That telnet game I linked, that was what internet games looked like in the early to mid 90s. Then some guy took the idea, put a graphical interface on it and released it as a profit seeking game called Ultima Online. This led to Everquest which led to World of Warcraft and a bunch of other online RPGs. There is no incentive to evolve without a profit motive.
It was close enough as makes no difference. I could've added in Zork tooUzique wrote:
are you trying to seriously suggest that software patents are the reason that MUDS evolved?JohnG@lt wrote:
That telnet game I linked, that was what internet games looked like in the early to mid 90s. Then some guy took the idea, put a graphical interface on it and released it as a profit seeking game called Ultima Online. This led to Everquest which led to World of Warcraft and a bunch of other online RPGs. There is no incentive to evolve without a profit motive.
eeerm... nothing to do with wider availability of more powerful computing hardware, or anything.
entirely legislative. right.
also, lol at your summary of 'game evolution'.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-11 10:37:35)