OpenGL?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What should be done with Software Patents?
My cousin used to write phishing software for AOL and programs that would spam AOL with Terms of Service complaints against people to get their account disabled. Ended up having the FBI come to his house and taking away his computer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I used to d/l aol proggies thinking i was a computer expert. Fate 9.0 nigga what
Tu Stultus Es
I lived and played through the transition. When I started gaming it was either single player games or MUDs/MUSHs/MOOs. Played those for a solid five years, ended up becoming a developer on two of them, and then I joined the Army. Around that time Ultima came out and stole away much of the playerbase of these games. The Ultima people were MUD developers themselves who decided to slap a graphical interface on the game and charge money. A genre was born.Uzique wrote:
i played MUDS on my first computer, just out of curiosity to do with the telnet-era. it was extremely boring. i lasted about 2 days.
software patents or not, my increased hardware capabilities made me prefer directx games over telnet games. tyvm.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ha, that was my cousins competitor.eleven bravo wrote:
I used to d/l aol proggies thinking i was a computer expert. Fate 9.0 nigga what
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I used a lot. you remember which one your cousin made?
Tu Stultus Es
I'll have to ask him. He's living in Argentina at the moment and isn't currently online.eleven bravo wrote:
I used a lot. you remember which one your cousin made?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
A software patent is not the same as a license. Software patents are not source code, artistic rights to models, voice acting etc. It would in no way prevent innovation.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
carrier pigeon
Tu Stultus Es
Shattered Kingdoms was the only MUD that caught my interest. Great map layout, decently balanced skills, functioning quests and equipment, a balanced economy, races and abilities that make sense, in-game books adding to back-story, good descriptions, tastefully-colored text and an 'RP reason' required to kill other players. Still running today, but without buddies playing, I think I've spent enough time in it.Uzique wrote:
i played MUDS on my first computer, just out of curiosity to do with the telnet-era. it was extremely boring. i lasted about 2 days.
software patents or not, my increased hardware capabilities made me prefer directx games over telnet games. tyvm.
I tried another one that was pure PK and I can't even remember what it was called. Also played on a Pern MOO (before I got tired of the elitist atmosphere) and a Xanth MOO (before I got tired of the low population).
I played a pure PK one called Genocide that was based out of Sam Houston State University in Texas. First one I played was the Swedish one I linked earlier in the thread and there was another one in Finland called BatMUD that I played.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Shattered Kingdoms was the only MUD that caught my interest. Great map layout, decently balanced skills, races and abilities that make sense, in-game books adding to back-story, good descriptions, tastefully-colored text and an 'RP reason' required to kill other players. Still running today, but without buddies playing, I think I've spent enough time in it.Uzique wrote:
i played MUDS on my first computer, just out of curiosity to do with the telnet-era. it was extremely boring. i lasted about 2 days.
software patents or not, my increased hardware capabilities made me prefer directx games over telnet games. tyvm.
I tried another one that was pure PK and I can't even remember what it was called. Also played on a Pern MOO (before I got tired of the elitist atmosphere) and a Xanth MOO (before I got tired of the low population).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No I'm not an oss or nothing advocate. I think whatever benefit a software patent could bring, it is outweighed by patent trolls. Especially those that "innovate" something then sit dormant waiting for it to be successful only to sue a huge number of parties.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 license is based on the patents existence. If the patent did not exist, neither would the license.jsnipy wrote:
A software patent is not the same as a license. Software patents are not source code, artistic rights to models, voice acting etc. It would in no way prevent innovation.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
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The last time I played my regular one was like a 10-hour stint with a buddy over Teamspeak. We managed to take down a player twice our level who was preying on a leveling area (usually frowned upon), merely because he was a skinny-ass necromancer, my buddy had a big spear that could reach him through pet formation, and I had just learned 'blind' and got lucky on my first cast. Good times.
~~thread->
~~thread->
Uhh wow.... haha.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The last time I played my regular one was like a 10-hour stint with a buddy over Teamspeak. We managed to take down a player twice our level who was preying on a leveling area (usually frowned upon), merely because he was a skinny-ass necromancer, my buddy had a big spear that could reach him through pet formation, and I had just learned 'blind' and got lucky on my first cast. Good times.
~~thread->
The PK mud I played on was like an arena. It had areas leading off of a main 'island' that you would walk through and clear (picking up all items). You could either sell the items for money or use them. Every round played would reset the map and the areas loaded would be random. The game would come down to ones ability to clear as quickly as possible which required quick fingers and an encyclopedic memory of the various areas as well as chosen class. A persons level in the game was irrelevant since everyone started off equally naked when dropped into the arena.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Licenses are not tied to patents. Hundreds of vendors produce software using a licensing model but with no underlying patents.JohnG@lt wrote:
The license is based on the patents existence. If the patent did not exist, neither would the license.jsnipy wrote:
A software patent is not the same as a license. Software patents are not source code, artistic rights to models, voice acting etc. It would in no way prevent innovation.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:
Licenses are not tied to patents. Hundreds of vendors produce software using a licensing model but with no underlying patents.JohnG@lt wrote:
The license is based on the patents existence. If the patent did not exist, neither would the license.jsnipy wrote:
A software patent is not the same as a license. Software patents are not source code, artistic rights to models, voice acting etc. It would in no way prevent innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patentA patent is a set of exclusionary rights granted by a state to a patent holder for a limited period of time, usually 20 years. These rights are granted to patent applicants in exchange for their disclosure of the inventions. Once a patent is granted in a given country, no person may make, use, sell or import/export the claimed invention in that country without the permission of the patent holder. Permission, where granted, is typically in the form of a license which conditions are set by the patent owner: it may be gratis or in return for a royalty payment or lump sum fee.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nice troll. I know what a software patent is. It is not the same as a license.
What I'm saying is that all licensed software does not have an underlying patent, thus not having software patents would mean nothing.
What I'm saying is that all licensed software does not have an underlying patent, thus not having software patents would mean nothing.
No one is trolling. Companies license products because they have a patent and can do so. If they had no patent they would have no ownership of the intellectual property, and while they could certainly attempt to charge money for the product, they have no recourse if someone rips them off.jsnipy wrote:
Nice troll. I know what a software patent is. It is not the same as a license.
Open Source is fantastic if your expectations are low. Since the developers generally don't make a living wage producing free software while relying on donations, it is for the most part a hobby and side project. Real innovation only occurs when there is a profit motive and a person can dedicate themselves full time to solving a problem or creating a piece of software.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Now here's me trolling, jsnipy. In my experience, people who whine and cry about the cost of software and wish everything was open and free are basement dwelling losers without a pot to piss in. Read: teenagers and college students. Get a job.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-11 11:18:20)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You are thinking form the perspective of cots/shrink wrapped products. Sure Oracle, MS, etc. have patents on products they sell software but that does account for all software.
What about companies that develop use existing tools and provide software as a service? Say there is some algorithm for making a health insurance worthiness decision. Is that algorithm patentable? What if another else ends up doing the same thing with out having illegally accessed the first companies software or key resources, can they be sued?
Where do you draw the line?
I get where you are coming from, I do not like the chin beards who go around screaming "free software or die". But its not quite the same issue
(in my mind). MS has kept me in work for 11 years now I've worked in enterprise environment in all but 2 of those years.
What about companies that develop use existing tools and provide software as a service? Say there is some algorithm for making a health insurance worthiness decision. Is that algorithm patentable? What if another else ends up doing the same thing with out having illegally accessed the first companies software or key resources, can they be sued?
Where do you draw the line?
I get where you are coming from, I do not like the chin beards who go around screaming "free software or die". But its not quite the same issue
(in my mind). MS has kept me in work for 11 years now I've worked in enterprise environment in all but 2 of those years.
So what does this have to do with video games.JohnG@lt wrote:
No one is trolling. Companies license products because they have a patent and can do so. If they had no patent they would have no ownership of the intellectual property, and while they could certainly attempt to charge money for the product, they have no recourse if someone rips them off.jsnipy wrote:
Nice troll. I know what a software patent is. It is not the same as a license.
Open Source is fantastic if your expectations are low. Since the developers generally don't make a living wage producing free software while relying on donations, it is for the most part a hobby and side project. Real innovation only occurs when there is a profit motive and a person can dedicate themselves full time to solving a problem or creating a piece of software.
Galt, by the same logic artists would have a file a patent for every album they released. It's still illegal to copy something without taking out a patent on it.
I'm really not thinking from a cots perspective. I'm talking about patented code behind software.jsnipy wrote:
You are thinking form the perspective of cots/shrink wrapped products. Sure Oracle, MS, etc. have patents on products they sell software but that does account for all software.
What about companies that develop use existing tools and provide software as a service? Say there is some algorithm for making a health insurance worthiness decision. Is that algorithm patentable? What if another else ends up doing the same thing with out having illegally accessed the first companies software or key resources, can they be sued?
Where do you draw the line?
I come from a family of software developers so this is something close to my heart. Not only was my dad one of the top computer consultants in Manhattan back in the day (and had one of the very first websites), I have multiple cousins in the industry as well. Once upon a time I also wanted to get into software development before I saw my dad struggling to find work when they started outsourcing in the late 90s. Just getting that out of the way.
My father used to write database software using Foxpro for many firms in Manhattan. He worked for American Express, Ernst & Young and many others. When he wrote software for these companies he signed legal documents that transferred ownership of it to the company. So, in this case he would have no right to patent the software, but the companies could if they wanted to.
He went from doing this to writing freelance software for small companies which he patented and licensed himself. It's the line code in the software that is patentable, nothing else. You could trademark the name or the packaging but that doesn't matter.
But anyway, that's all irrelevant. The fear is that every single line of code will eventually be patented right? Well, while there are still only a handful of languages in the world, they're all still different enough that you can simply just use a different language to perform the same function and get around the patent. If I write a program that adds X + Y and patent it, a different software developer can still come by and change it to adding Y + X and avoid the patent.
I understand the fears of squatting, I really do, I just know that protection of property rights are paramount to a strong economy based on trade. I wouldn't develop or invent a damn thing if I knew that someone could come along, copy my product, and sell it at 1/10th the cost until I'm driven out of business simply because they have more resources. Frankly, patents and licensing are the only things keeping the little guys from being raped by MS, Adobe, etc.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They take out a copyright on every album.ghettoperson wrote:
Galt, by the same logic artists would have a file a patent for every album they released. It's still illegal to copy something without taking out a patent on it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What should be done with Software Patents?