[clue-talk] Microsoft Claims 235 Patents Violated

[David L. Willson]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 18:04 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On May 14, 2007, at 4:45 PM, David L. Willson wrote:
> 
> > It's time we took the idea of 'honor' back out of the closet, and
> > openly discussed the idea that stealing from a thief makes one an even
> > more lowly thief.  Not everything is relative.  There are things more
> > important than money. Stolen is the most expensive.  Refuse to steal.
> 
> I'm not saying it is or isn't, just need to point out here that  
> you've just described the whole crux of the problem and didn't  
> realize it.  The question, "Is an idea something you can steal?" --  
> is at the heart of all Intellectual "Property" lawsuits and Patents,  
> Copyrights, etc.
> 
> I put "property" in quotation marks because we Americans think in  
> these terms... but in some cultures, no one owns ideas.
> 
> > Refuse to behave dishonorably, and refuse to endorse it in others,
> > whether those others are individuals or companies.
> 
> Many people believe that ideas are NOT something that can be treated  
> as property (I'm not saying that, I'm just explaining "their" side),  
> and don't feel that copying an idea is "dishonorable" at all.
> 
> That's the underlying problem.  :-)

<long, damned rant warning>

I'm not talking about copying ideas, I'm talking about copying programs,
the products of the work of an individual or company.

When I download Linux software, I use and share it in ways that are
acceptable to the entit(y|ies) I acquired it from.  If I didn't, I would
be "stealing" their service, because I would not be honoring my part of
the social contract between the FOSS developer and me.

It should be the same when I use Windows, I pay the money, I use and
do-not-share it in ways that are acceptable to the entit(y|ies) I
acquired it from.  Microsoft's dishonorable behavior does not dishonor
me, but stealing their software or service, would.

Someone's work is in the package, if nothing else, and that person has
the right to make demands of anyone that accepts the benefit of their
work.  Note that I did not say "idea", I said "work".  The same is true
of music, and any other art.  If I can't enjoy Mozart's work, in ways
that are acceptable to him or his duly appointed agent, then it is my
duty to decline the service.  Metallica comes to mind.  I own Metallica
CDs, but I have never downloaded any of their music, and never will.
OTOH, I have downloaded plenty of "Hem" tracks that are not on their
CDs, shared those tracks, and then purchased their CDs.

And now, I have to clarify from the other side:  Software patents are
completely poisonous bullshit, as we currently use them.  No industry,
especially not the software industry, should be so litigious that gifted
men are unable to fully and creatively use their gifts, because of fear
that someone will sue them for doing what they are especially well able
to do, simply because they had an idea for, or even executed, a similar
product, earlier.  You're right about ideas.  Ideas can, and should, be
freely shared.  Idea camping is as wrong and stupid as domain-hoarding.
There is a difference between stealing a man's work, and making a
better, similar product.  Builders should be able to build things, and
those things, especially when they are inherently complex, must be
allowed to be navigationally familiar to the other things in their
class, without fear of lawyerly reprisal on the builder.  Anything else
~inhibits~ innovation.

And one last note, from the original angle:  Our same Builder, who
should be free of the fear of being sued for improving on claimed
functional areas, should too, be able to work hard, and offer the
product of his work, on terms acceptable to him, without fear that
someone will call that work an "idea" and then use or share it in ways
that he doesn't agree to.  It's ~his~ work.  Whether he decides to GPL,
so that another Builder may increase on what he has made, or he decides
to go closed-source and price-gouge, does not change the fact that he
owns his work and trades or gives it away on terms that are acceptable
to him.  The decision is entirely his to make, by right of having done
the work.