Re: vogons vs turlettes

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

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
matter how many million rat-faced lawyers or politicians say otherwise.
Besides, that's kinda moot, an algorithm may be monopolized under either,
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.

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
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.


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


    Why am I always finding myself going around everyone's barriers, QC? If
that is the way you like the world, there is reason to believe that you are
neurotic or worse. 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. Yes, real life goes around the barriers, but that wastes time. Why?

>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. 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.

> *>    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.

> *>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.

> *>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.


> *>    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.

>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.

> *>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.

>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' ?