Unfortunately I am afraid it's not that easy to implement a distributed search engine that would be fast and as easy to use as normal search engines, accessible without installing anything etc.
Wanna free Internet? Don't relay on any legislation - form a group of technical experts and try to think of ways how to make Internet even more decentralized, with transparent end-to-end encryption, no single point of failure, no single address to block, no single server to seize... total cloud.
IMO there is a fallacy - you ignore the difference between word apple and 'Apple computers' brand. Apple computers brand did not exist before Apple created it. And it's much more specific than just some color... or at least should be (specific Apple logotype, not just any apple etc).
The fact that Apple seems to go after any company that just uses any apple is a different thing and I consider it disgusting legal bullying based on power of money, not power of justice and law.
IMO smaller robbery is still robbery. The color is not anything created by Cadbury, it's 'public good' an anyone should be able to use if for whatever they like... including candy, chocolate and foodstuff. What gives Cadbury any right to exclude me from using that color on my candy? What is this supposed right based on?
The fact that Cadbury is 'trying to protect its interest' is not sufficient justification at all... because so does the robber. The fact they want to protect their interest does not mean they have any right to do so.
Do you think anyone should be able to claim ownership over any public good they did not create and exclude others from using it just because they want to? Can you imagine how would society like that work?
What is the opposite of expropriation - is appropriation the correct English term? Because that's exactly what this is - they take something that belongs to everybody - purple color - and give it to some private party.
I grew up in communist country where they confiscated private property and gave it to 'the people' (read 'communists and their minions') and now I have to watch how so called intellectual property is used to rob us from right to use common shared things like colors (trademark) or ideas (obvious or general patents).
I understand that people can protect something they've created - brand (trademark) or invention based on expensive research (patents) - but how can anyone dare to claim ownership over something like color? They cannot say that they created the color... they are just taking something that was already here for everybody to use, public good... and stealing it from us... maybe legally but certainly not rightfully.
When I see proposals like this I think the secure strategy for any on-line business is to avoid US-based payment processors. But VISA, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US-controlled. Any tips on non-US payment processor for a non-US business?
It seems to me that with proposals like that the right strategic decision for any non-US innovative business would be to not rely on any US-controlled payment processing provider. But Visa, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US controlled. What else is there?
I keep thinking about that Mike's recent article about different treatment for law-breaking depending on whether or not nou have power ( http://goo.gl/rVs7h ).
Now I see that everywhere - draconian punishments for us low-lifes and slap on the wrist for our corporate masters. You share 31 songs and you are financially ruined for the rest of your life. They try to stole your money... and what happens when they are caught? Nothing... they just happily keep trying.
I am starting to thing there is something about that "we are 99%" thing. Something really needs to be changed - now!
The court. I don't know how exactly the US law system works but I would expect that any system able of sending people to prison must also meet certain criteria to ensure that such power is not abused - having to prove that the defendant has been informed about the court and has been given a fair chance to defend himself would then be one of those criterion.
Yes. of course, but the point is that they have to prove that you knew about the default judgement. That's what the institution of "being served" is about... having supposedly independent witness who can testify that the defendant knew about the court and could properly defend himself. Without that any declaratory judgement should be invalid.
Wait a minute... that does not sound right. Being sentenced without being served? In the USA? I don't really know your constitution but I guess the right to defend yourself in court is a constitutional right in every at least somehow democratic country - and being sentenced without proper chance to defend himself would clearly violate this guy's human rights... so this cannot be final sentence, it's still just some kind of declaratory judgment that he can just deny that and after that the proper court will start, right?
The problem with this argument is that in theory this is not unilateral. In theory the contract is between artists on one side and people represented by government on the other side.
The fact that in reality government represents the other side of the contract than it should is another thing. And if this is the reason for opting out of the law... well than I am opting out of half of the whole legal system.
I can imagine that one day (some part of) the Internet declares independence and becomes self-governing entity where US or any other law cannot be effectively enforced.
Actually now that I think about it... we just need some distributed alternative to DNS, transparent end to end encryption and some independent money system and we are all set.
There are many countries with much reasonable patent law - why don't we just get out of US jurisdiction? In EU software is not even patentable and I am not talking about China yet - why don't we set up our patent-free app market there and just make sure that all the money is channeled out of the reach of US jurisdiction?
The Valley has traditionally been the place to go for startups and is still seen as such. But it seems to me that during last 5 yeas Americans managed to create the most innovation-hostile legal environment in the world... which kind of renders all those wonderful things they can offer to creative and productive people moot. Maybe it's time to use their screw ups as an opportunity and take the kingdom out of their hands. The society which managed to monopolize basic ideas and made creating useful things illegal and racketing legal is doomed anyway.
Lets brainstorm a little and try to imagine how global system able to transfer money to those who create things from those who find those things cool and useful without ever going through anything controlled by American law could look like.
Isn't this exactly what terrorists want? So we would change our way of life and give up substantial liberties to achieve security? Dear Americans, it seems to me that TSA is giving up to terrorists on your behalf... and encouraging more terrorist attacks by showing that this strategy just works.
If you did that your patents could not protect you - the protection is based on "if you sue us with your patents we will sue you with ours" strategy and if your patents were public domain you could not sue anyone.
But it could be possible to create some kind of GPL-like patent pool - something like "we put our patents together, you can use all patents in the pool as long as you never sue anyone, but if you sue, any patent from the pool will be used against you" kind of deal.
That thing about Einstein being religious is kind of a myth - "spiritual" would probably be a better word. For example, in his letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind he wrote "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".
About that thing with stupidity being "unique to social groups and not inherent to the human race" - AFAIK nobody in this discussion claimed that stupidity is unique to social groups. But the level of stupidity or ability to reason is not the same in every social group, do you agree?
Many social groups are self-assigned, you can decide whether you want to be a part of that group or not, and your ability to reason can certainly influence that decision.
BTW, it never ceases to surprise me how strong emotions can atheism provoke in the U.S. - I live in Europe, I am an atheist, so is most of the people I know and never in my life I encountered any negative reaction from anybody.
Well... we - users - could create that cost. Boycott of Apple products would work... if only enough people cared. But my guess is that most of the people just don't care. Although I would love to be proven wrong.
It seems to me that we are heading towards the end of free market - so many patents are so vague and broad that basically everything is covered by patents - therefore you risk lethal lawsuit no matter what you do to compete on the market... the only secure thing to do is doing nothing. So incentives are really screwed up. And government is not willing to fix it. It's time for creativity.
I grew up in a totalitarian communist regime. It was really bad and it damaged a lot of people. But to this day I am still surprised how creative some people can get under pressure.
The system is killing creativity - therefore we, creative people, need to find the way how to route around the system. Any ideas?
Yes... when they are going to imply, than I am going to disagree with that. But that police guy does not imply anything, directly or indirectly. Mere mention of some facts that can help understand the situation is not blaming... we have right to talk about reality, about changes that technologies bring to society, about tools that people including rioters use, about facts, right?.
There are so many real problems that sometimes we see some wrongdoing everywhere. But we have to be careful about that - there is really thin line between freedom defender and tin-foil-hat freak.
And BTW, please don't call me friend when you don't mean it. It feels like patronizing... and I am sure you would not want that.
Re: Re:
Unfortunately I am afraid it's not that easy to implement a distributed search engine that would be fast and as easy to use as normal search engines, accessible without installing anything etc.
Free internet you say?
Wanna free Internet? Don't relay on any legislation - form a group of technical experts and try to think of ways how to make Internet even more decentralized, with transparent end-to-end encryption, no single point of failure, no single address to block, no single server to seize... total cloud.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Appropriation?
IMO there is a fallacy - you ignore the difference between word apple and 'Apple computers' brand. Apple computers brand did not exist before Apple created it. And it's much more specific than just some color... or at least should be (specific Apple logotype, not just any apple etc).
The fact that Apple seems to go after any company that just uses any apple is a different thing and I consider it disgusting legal bullying based on power of money, not power of justice and law.
Re: Re: Appropriation?
IMO smaller robbery is still robbery. The color is not anything created by Cadbury, it's 'public good' an anyone should be able to use if for whatever they like... including candy, chocolate and foodstuff. What gives Cadbury any right to exclude me from using that color on my candy? What is this supposed right based on?
The fact that Cadbury is 'trying to protect its interest' is not sufficient justification at all... because so does the robber. The fact they want to protect their interest does not mean they have any right to do so.
Do you think anyone should be able to claim ownership over any public good they did not create and exclude others from using it just because they want to? Can you imagine how would society like that work?
Appropriation?
What is the opposite of expropriation - is appropriation the correct English term? Because that's exactly what this is - they take something that belongs to everybody - purple color - and give it to some private party.
I grew up in communist country where they confiscated private property and gave it to 'the people' (read 'communists and their minions') and now I have to watch how so called intellectual property is used to rob us from right to use common shared things like colors (trademark) or ideas (obvious or general patents).
I understand that people can protect something they've created - brand (trademark) or invention based on expensive research (patents) - but how can anyone dare to claim ownership over something like color? They cannot say that they created the color... they are just taking something that was already here for everybody to use, public good... and stealing it from us... maybe legally but certainly not rightfully.
That's what I call chutzpah.
Non-US payment processor?
When I see proposals like this I think the secure strategy for any on-line business is to avoid US-based payment processors. But VISA, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US-controlled. Any tips on non-US payment processor for a non-US business?
Non-US payment procesing provider?
It seems to me that with proposals like that the right strategic decision for any non-US innovative business would be to not rely on any US-controlled payment processing provider. But Visa, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US controlled. What else is there?
Re:
I keep thinking about that Mike's recent article about different treatment for law-breaking depending on whether or not nou have power ( http://goo.gl/rVs7h ).
Now I see that everywhere - draconian punishments for us low-lifes and slap on the wrist for our corporate masters. You share 31 songs and you are financially ruined for the rest of your life. They try to stole your money... and what happens when they are caught? Nothing... they just happily keep trying.
I am starting to thing there is something about that "we are 99%" thing. Something really needs to be changed - now!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
The court. I don't know how exactly the US law system works but I would expect that any system able of sending people to prison must also meet certain criteria to ensure that such power is not abused - having to prove that the defendant has been informed about the court and has been given a fair chance to defend himself would then be one of those criterion.
Re: Re: Huh?
Yes. of course, but the point is that they have to prove that you knew about the default judgement. That's what the institution of "being served" is about... having supposedly independent witness who can testify that the defendant knew about the court and could properly defend himself. Without that any declaratory judgement should be invalid.
Huh?
Wait a minute... that does not sound right. Being sentenced without being served? In the USA? I don't really know your constitution but I guess the right to defend yourself in court is a constitutional right in every at least somehow democratic country - and being sentenced without proper chance to defend himself would clearly violate this guy's human rights... so this cannot be final sentence, it's still just some kind of declaratory judgment that he can just deny that and after that the proper court will start, right?
Unilaterral?
The problem with this argument is that in theory this is not unilateral. In theory the contract is between artists on one side and people represented by government on the other side.
The fact that in reality government represents the other side of the contract than it should is another thing. And if this is the reason for opting out of the law... well than I am opting out of half of the whole legal system.
Re: Re: Boycotting the wrong party
I can imagine that one day (some part of) the Internet declares independence and becomes self-governing entity where US or any other law cannot be effectively enforced.
Actually now that I think about it... we just need some distributed alternative to DNS, transparent end to end encryption and some independent money system and we are all set.
Just get out of US jurisdiction
There are many countries with much reasonable patent law - why don't we just get out of US jurisdiction? In EU software is not even patentable and I am not talking about China yet - why don't we set up our patent-free app market there and just make sure that all the money is channeled out of the reach of US jurisdiction?
The Valley has traditionally been the place to go for startups and is still seen as such. But it seems to me that during last 5 yeas Americans managed to create the most innovation-hostile legal environment in the world... which kind of renders all those wonderful things they can offer to creative and productive people moot. Maybe it's time to use their screw ups as an opportunity and take the kingdom out of their hands. The society which managed to monopolize basic ideas and made creating useful things illegal and racketing legal is doomed anyway.
Lets brainstorm a little and try to imagine how global system able to transfer money to those who create things from those who find those things cool and useful without ever going through anything controlled by American law could look like.
Terrorists must be so proud
Isn't this exactly what terrorists want? So we would change our way of life and give up substantial liberties to achieve security? Dear Americans, it seems to me that TSA is giving up to terrorists on your behalf... and encouraging more terrorist attacks by showing that this strategy just works.
Re:
If you did that your patents could not protect you - the protection is based on "if you sue us with your patents we will sue you with ours" strategy and if your patents were public domain you could not sue anyone.
But it could be possible to create some kind of GPL-like patent pool - something like "we put our patents together, you can use all patents in the pool as long as you never sue anyone, but if you sue, any patent from the pool will be used against you" kind of deal.
Re: Re: Re: Typical
That thing about Einstein being religious is kind of a myth - "spiritual" would probably be a better word. For example, in his letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind he wrote "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".
About that thing with stupidity being "unique to social groups and not inherent to the human race" - AFAIK nobody in this discussion claimed that stupidity is unique to social groups. But the level of stupidity or ability to reason is not the same in every social group, do you agree?
Many social groups are self-assigned, you can decide whether you want to be a part of that group or not, and your ability to reason can certainly influence that decision.
BTW, it never ceases to surprise me how strong emotions can atheism provoke in the U.S. - I live in Europe, I am an atheist, so is most of the people I know and never in my life I encountered any negative reaction from anybody.
there's no cost to Apple for this?
Well... we - users - could create that cost. Boycott of Apple products would work... if only enough people cared. But my guess is that most of the people just don't care. Although I would love to be proven wrong.
The end of capitalism?
It seems to me that we are heading towards the end of free market - so many patents are so vague and broad that basically everything is covered by patents - therefore you risk lethal lawsuit no matter what you do to compete on the market... the only secure thing to do is doing nothing. So incentives are really screwed up. And government is not willing to fix it. It's time for creativity.
I grew up in a totalitarian communist regime. It was really bad and it damaged a lot of people. But to this day I am still surprised how creative some people can get under pressure.
The system is killing creativity - therefore we, creative people, need to find the way how to route around the system. Any ideas?
Re: Re: Re: Re: didn't you jum the gun a little?
Yes... when they are going to imply, than I am going to disagree with that. But that police guy does not imply anything, directly or indirectly. Mere mention of some facts that can help understand the situation is not blaming... we have right to talk about reality, about changes that technologies bring to society, about tools that people including rioters use, about facts, right?.
There are so many real problems that sometimes we see some wrongdoing everywhere. But we have to be careful about that - there is really thin line between freedom defender and tin-foil-hat freak.
And BTW, please don't call me friend when you don't mean it. It feels like patronizing... and I am sure you would not want that.