3 ms·

And what's specifically wrong with this, aside from the way the information was specifically acquired? In tech, we bemoan laws against technological breaking a

And what's specifically wrong with this, aside from the way the information was specifically acquired? In tech, we bemoan laws against technological breaking and entering with a view to learn about how things work (we call it reverse engineering), but applied to mechanical engineers this is not right? While I understand the law regarding trespass is different, this is just a means to an end. I think your argument would hold more weight if you could elaborate more on the patent and monopoly stuff, but instead you focus on the act and context of learning how the cyclone works.

stefantalpalaru 10y ago
> In tech, we bemoan laws against technological breaking and entering with a view to learn about how things work (we call it reverse engineering), but applied to mechanical engineers this is not right? There are people in prison for doing exactly that. Some impressionable ones killed themselves to avoid that fate. Praising one guy that got away with it because of luck and money is disingenuous at best. By the way, the PR spin that followed is a thing of beauty: recent articles talk about a "visit" to the sawmill. Any mention of night or climbing all over the target have been removed. > I think your argument would hold more weight if you could elaborate more on the patent and monopoly stuff It's not an argument, it's an observation. The guy got incredibly rich by stealing a design, claiming it as his own and preventing everybody else from using it without his expensive permission. What is there to argue about? The way the society benefits from overpriced vacuum cleaners and silly fans with the rotor hidden from sight?