4 ms·

And what about programmers that care about free as freedom?

matt4077 9y ago
They're "free as in freedom"[0] to publish their inventions without applying for a patent, or to license their patents in any way they see fit, including free-as-in-everything. [0]: The original "Free as in speech" seems to be a much better way to express your sentiment.
dekhn 9y ago
What about them? You're free to discover new things, and not patent them, instead publishing them. If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property. Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The people doing it and the government.
  - dekhn 9y ago
    OK it sounds like you just want to have an internet argument to win internet points.
    - SiempreViernes 9y ago
      Don't be grumpy, the "it is technically allowed, therefore morally good"-argument is exceedingly weak, you shoudn't rely on it.
      - dekhn 9y ago
        I didn't make that argument. I made the argument that patents are the least bad approach to the problem, and that as an incentive, it works well.
  - MadcapJake 9y ago
    > but it is formally allowed Your correlation doesn't hold up because tax loopholes are not formally allowed. You call that out in your previous sentence by scare-quoting "allow". The inventor uses a formal system (patents). The company uses an informal system (tax loopholes). In the case of a formal system, you do not attack the inventor because he is just using the proper channel. In the case of an informal system, you do attack the company because the company is unethically taking advantage of a channel that shouldn't be there in the first place.
sharemywin 9y ago
doubt it effects programmers, just chips. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Intern...
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > doubt it effects programmers, just chips. The boundaries are fluent (FPGAs).

They're "free as in freedom"[0] to publish their inventions without applying for a patent, or to license their patents in any way they see fit, including free-as-in-everything. [0]: The original "Free as in speech" seems to be a much better way to express your sentiment.

dekhn 9y ago

What about them? You're free to discover new things, and not patent them, instead publishing them. If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.

wolfgke 9y ago
> If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property. Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The people doing it and the government.
- dekhn 9y ago
  OK it sounds like you just want to have an internet argument to win internet points.
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    Don't be grumpy, the "it is technically allowed, therefore morally good"-argument is exceedingly weak, you shoudn't rely on it.
    - dekhn 9y ago
      I didn't make that argument. I made the argument that patents are the least bad approach to the problem, and that as an incentive, it works well.
- MadcapJake 9y ago
  > but it is formally allowed Your correlation doesn't hold up because tax loopholes are not formally allowed. You call that out in your previous sentence by scare-quoting "allow". The inventor uses a formal system (patents). The company uses an informal system (tax loopholes). In the case of a formal system, you do not attack the inventor because he is just using the proper channel. In the case of an informal system, you do attack the company because the company is unethically taking advantage of a channel that shouldn't be there in the first place.

sharemywin 9y ago

doubt it effects programmers, just chips. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Intern...

wolfgke 9y ago
> doubt it effects programmers, just chips. The boundaries are fluent (FPGAs).