3 ms·
"if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates
by orangecat 16y ago
"if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests".
Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does.
My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
- tptacek 16y agoYou see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
- 1337p337 16y agoSure, there's another side to this, but it's not a valid side. Your side merely capitalizes on the present legal murkiness of the software/copyright issue. Console manufacturers, phone manufacturers, and a legion of other device manufacturers have spent three decades capitalizing on abuses of patent and copyright law. Patents exist not to lock out competition or allow total control over an invention, but as a method for making sure your work isn't stolen (for a limited time) and thus give you a commercial incentive to innovate. It is outright abuse to say that it gives anyone the right to dictate how devices are used, but is sadly an abuse that has become the status quo.
- tptacek 16y agoYou write as if Microsoft discovered the Kinect, maybe deep inside some ancient system of caves, and now is hoarding them for their own nefarious purposes.