Re: vogons vs turlettes

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, John.

 *>Quantum_Cat wrote in message

 *>>Oops.. Here's where it starts becoming irrelevant.
 *>>Algorithms fall under Patent law.  For example, the 
method
 *>>used to compress GIF's, also used by Shrinkit.  UniSys(?)
 *>>hold the patent and protects it.
 *>>
 *>>This is NOT a copyright consideration then.


 *>Dude, it's all intellectual property. To me, it's more or 
less the same, no

Yes, it's intellectual property, but it's handled 
differently.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but a patent is good 
for 17 years.  Quite unlike a copyright.  

And I prefer to stick to the situations where the Dorktor and 
friends are likely to be active.  Patent infringment isn't 
one of those areas.

 *>matter how many million rat-faced lawyers or politicians 
say otherwise.

I'm afraid I'm not in a position to convince these folks 
otherwise.

 *>Besides, that's kinda moot, an algorithm may be 
monopolized under either,

I take it you don't like inventors to profit from their 
efforts?  The government encourages folks to invent and 
create, John.  That's the point of Patent and Copyright laws.

 *>depending on the whims of the corporate legal dept. Then 
there is trade
 *>secret, which somehow your lawyer heros of the anti-piracy 
crusade manage to
 *>make apply.

I don't know if "trade secrets" are a legal term, so I don't 
know of any law that protects them.  There IS the implication 
that they are of course, secret, to I doubt they'd ever end 
up in our hands.  ;)

 *>Also, not to change the rules mid-game, but I'd like to 
make it clear
 *>'algorithm' is only one possibility used for illustration 
purposes. There

Um.. That IS changing the rules mid-game.  ;)

 *>are several other things that could be substituted, and 
the crux of the
 *>argument would remain the same. A system API. A GUI, or 
for that matter, any
 *>other kind of interface, should another be designed. The 
"look and feel" of
 *>a particular game or app (Yes, I am aware that Apple lost 
that case, but
 *>many other lower profile companies have been winning it.). 
A storyline for a
 *>game/novel/movie.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain what the crux is 
then.  You've made it so broad that it becomes too unwieldly 
for me to address.  I don't see how any of these examples can 
be used to argue anything about copyrights.

 *>>Real life goes around barriers like you've constructed, 
John.


 *>    Why am I always finding myself going around everyone's 
barriers, QC? 

I've been told that's "Real Life".  I don't like it either, 
but I guess society has tried anarchy and didn't like it.  ;)

 *>If that is the way you like the world, there is reason to 
believe that you
 *>are neurotic or worse. 

No, but I do think that it is reasonable to place justifiable 
limits on the behaviour of citizens.

 *>If we are all supposed to be on the same team, be it
 *>humanity, group of enthusiasts, felllow americans, 
whatever... we should be
 *>helping each other, not making everyone jump through 
hoops. For no good
 *>reason. 

Well, I think you understand the reasons.  It's all about 
property and who gets to decide how and when it gets handled.  
Does the right fall to some self appointed "Doctor", or the 
owner?  You know it's as clear as that, in the case of Apple 
II piracy.

 *>Yes, real life goes around the barriers, but that wastes 
time. Why?

Quick solutions generally end up causing more problems than 
they solve.  That's a matter of history.

 *>>OK.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm under the impression that
 *>>Shrinkwrap agreements are unenforcible and have no 
protection
 *>>under the law.  That means they're worthless.  Please 
correct
 *>>me if I'm wrong.  I'll admit to getting this by hearsay.

 *>That's funny, I would have guessed that you are a lawyer, 
or paralegal, or
 *>somesuch.

 *>I can agree with you on one point, the general opinion 
(maybe even legal
 *>opinion) is that they are unenforcible. That doesn't mean 
that they are
 *>invalid. 

I believe they are.  They certainly don't have the protection 
of contracts, since by their "buried in a sealed box" nature, 
there is not mutual consent.

 *>The US (and a great many other nations) has a strong 
tradition of
 *>oral contracts and other less official contractual 
relationships (even a
 *>spoken promise might be something they can legally hold 
you to, in the right
 *>circumstances). Intellectual property law (law, you know, 
the fount of all
 *>ethics and morals) is a GOOD THING, but contract law is 
something to ignore?
 *>In all fairness, you admitted this isn't an area of 
expertise, so I can
 *>hardly call you on it. Heck, maybe you haven't even given 
it much thought,
 *>in which case I'm glad I brought it up.

Perhaps others can enlighten the both of us.

 *>> *>    How possible is this scenario? Oh, by any means
 *>>uncommon, one might even
 *>> *>say rare.
 *>>
 *>>As constructed, I'd say nearly impossible.  Any company 
with
 *>>such a wonderful product would hardly shoot itself in the
 *>>foot.  They call them upgrades.


 *>Hardly impossible. Easily 75% falls under the category of
 *>mainframe/minicomputer software. Still a considerable 
fraction in the
 *>consumer arena. The one that hurt me the most was Window 
95 OSR2. Never
 *>released for consumer purchase, forbidden by EULA ("Not to 
be sold without
 *>the sale of a new computer" or somesuch). I build my own 
machines, and even
 *>were I to buy a Dell or something, I couldn't transfer the 
software. Hardly
 *>a game that some teen wants either. Necessary for 2 
reasons in my case,
 *>Fat32 support, and USB support. Windows 98 wasn't an 
option then, and in my
 *>considerable expertise, still isn't. Lots of unnecessary 
technical baggage,
 *>plus an even worse interface. And to this day, I have no 
idea why M$ chose
 *>to keep it from the public.

Most mainframe/minicomputer software is leased, and does 
involve contracts.  In any case, it's difficult to see how 
this relates to the current situation of piracy in the Apple 
II World.

As far as MicroSoft's marketing strategy... I'm outside the 
loop.  ;)

 *>> *>Does it happen? All but the part about a reaonable 
human
 *>>being
 *>> *>giving a flying fuck what the EULA says.
 *>>
 *>>Agreed.  The shrinkwrap agreement is waste paper.


 *>I'm sad to say that our agreement here means little. Waste 
of paper or not,
 *>it is still a valid contract. Maybe even more so, I didn't 
want to mention
 *>it without something to cite, but I'll be damned if it 
doesn't seem like
 *>DCMA or another one gave EULA's a big dose of credibility. 
I'll look it up,
 *>if you are interested.

Yes, I'm interested.  It's my understanding that shrinkwrap 
agreement is worthless without the expressed consent of both 
parties.

 *>> *>Is this trend dissappearing, or
 *>> *>increasing? Certainly increasing, exponentially. Am I
 *>>bullshitting, or can I
 *>> *>actually cite an example that a normal person would
 *>>recognize? I am not
 *>> *>bullshitting. QC, if you are as computer literate as 
you
 *>>probably like to
 *>> *>claim, know that I could list no less than 3 full 
pages
 *>>worth of current
 *>> *>software, and certainly not less than half a page of
 *>>Apple// vintage
 *>> *>software.
 *>>
 *>>That fit your hypothetical situation that you've just
 *>>postulated?  Where a patented algorithm is the cause of 
your
 *>>postulated barrier to our theoretical user?
 *>>
 *>>I'm going to call you on this, John.  Post your evidence.


 *>List forthcoming.

Thank you.

 *>> *>    My question for you is this, QC. How can you 
possibly
 *>>say that this is
 *>> *>in any way reasonable, without resorting to juvenile 
word
 *>>games, or ignoring
 *>> *>the heart of the matter?
 *>>
 *>>As I mentioned earlier.  As you presented the situation, 
it
 *>>becomes a Patent law problem.  Well outside of the
 *>>protections offered copyright holders.
 *>>
 *>>As I understand it, patents have a considerably shorter
 *>>lifespan than copyright.
 *>>
 *>>As for the reasonability of your construction, I'd have 
to it
 *>>wasn't well constructed.  Unbelievable would be another 
term.


 *>Unbelievable is a very good term. Unfortunately, that is 
'unbelievable' in
 *>the "I can't believe this became law" dept., not in the 
"that lie isn't even
 *>well constructed" dept.

More in the "Your construction doesn't appear to define the 
point you appear to be wanting to make.".  

 *>>Will you be addressing the points I made or will you be
 *>>ignoring them?

 *>I'm in a hurry, if I missed a few, just point me at them.

Well, I remain confused on how you think this exercise could 
be used to validate the argument that other self appointed 
folks could morally usurp the rights of the copyright holder.  
Small matter.  ;)

 *>> *>For the rest of you, I have a few predictions.
 *>> *>#1 QC resorts to name calling.
 *>***clipped***
 *>> *>#8 But most of all, most importantly, he'll never
 *>> *>actually answer my main question. He'll tear it to 
pieces,
 *>>and argue each
 *>> *>minor point out of context, he'll demand proof for 
things
 *>>that are
 *>> *>completely obvious, but lacking any official 
statistical
 *>>data, he'll throw
 *>> *>every fallacy in the book at it. But we'll never hear 
an
 *>>answer.


 *>I apologize for this part, perhaps a little bit unfair. 
Wanted to try to
 *>encourage you to repsond though.

That's OK.  I'm beginning to be amused at all the numbered 
lists we've been seeing posted on csa2 lately.  Perhaps I 
should give it a try.  It might be catching.  ;)

 *>>Well, I think I've addressed everything adequately.  
Quibble
 *>>if you wish.  I certainly hope you don't pull the typical
 *>>"ignore the portions that shoot my construction full of
 *>>holes" dodge.
 *>>
 *>>Anyway, up to these last enumerated prophecies, you were 
very
 *>>civil.  :)
 *>>
 *>>Vogons For a Turlette (Dang!  Another one!) Free Apple II
 *>>Community!
 *>>
 *>>Quantum_Cat


 *>Oh. FYI, patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret 
all fall under the
 *>umbrella of IP (intellectual property). I was under the 
impression that you
 *>were worried about copyright only when that was the 
particular infringement
 *>someone was advocating. At other times, you seem to be on 
a plain vanilla IP
 *>crusade. Are you? If not, is copyright the only IP you 
believe to be a fair
 *>and just 'right' ?

No, it's just the one that Charles Turley and ilk have most 
blatantly trashed over the last 7 or 8 years.  I try not to 
take on larger Crusades than I think I can handle, so I'll 
leave Patent infringment, ROM copying by emulator users, and 
trademark problems to someone else.

If the Turlettes were to take all their actions underground, 
I would not follow.  I don't think csa2 should be their 
playground though.  That's where I intend to focus my 
efforts.  So, while other avenues of IP are certainly 
interesting, I'll have to forgo travel down those lines.  ;)

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat