5 ms·

IP is not property (usus, fructus, abusus) so the concept of IP theft is not meaningful

messe 5y ago
That argument may work in a first-year philosophy essay or—equivalently—a post on medium, but something tells me it's not going to hold up in a court, regardless of jurisdiction.
- not1ofU 5y ago
  China? :-D
  - messe 5y ago
    ...I'll concede that one.
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
This is correct. IP usually refers to one of: - copyright - trademark - patent Which are legitimate legal constructs in their own right, but they're not property. In this case, I think we're talking about patent infringement. So long as both jurisdictions have agreed to recognize each other's patent laws, it may still be just as illegal as theft. Whether it's as immoral as theft is a different sort of thing (I say it isn't, which is why I nitpick like this).
- dathinab 5y ago
  In this context we can exclude `trademark`. Also `copyright` is quite unlikely, too. So it's probably mostly patent impingement. And I think we all know how: - large cooperation infringe on patents of smaller ones without relevant consequences all the time - there is an endless number of complete absurd patents wrt. software. The patent system in context of software is fundamentally broken. - due to the US patent system being even more broken then the German one (was at the time the article refers to) the infringed patent might not even have been a valid patent. But what of this points apply to this specific case I don't know.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    Me neither. The only thing that really bothers me about this case is that disregarding IP law is a privilege that you can buy by hiring an army of lawyers. I wish that problematic laws could be ignored equally by all players.
fnord77 5y ago
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "P" in IP "property"?
- bsedlm 5y ago
  but the substance which is owned (the property) is not material; yet here we are pretending like it is so that people can 'earn a living' for selling the work done by computers.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  The term was coined by people who benefit when people confuse the two. It's like the "resin identification code" symbol which was crafted to be easily confused with the "recyclable" symbol--disinformation.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    This is such a good example, it was only recently that I learned about the true meaning of that satanic symbol
    - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
      Fewer examples of malicious design are as succinct as the resin identification code. It fooled almost everybody for a while. I wish there were a charity I could donate to that finds companies that engaging in that sort of behavior and sabotages their bottom line in nonviolent ways. If you can convince me that you'll hurt 'em to the tune of $10 for every $1 of mine, I'll have a couple hundred for you.
saas_sam 5y ago
If you spent a few years of your life coming up with a new way of doing something, and a company saw the details of your idea and got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? Should that be illegal?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "If you spent a few years of your life ... got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? " Being a scientist. Or working in academia. Net worth of greatest scientific minds in history, like Einstein or Heisenberg was less than that of average software dev, let alone bankers/businessmen. At most you can hope to get a Noble Prize, but your discoveries of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics are unpatentable. Fist the journals make money by selling your work, then the companies do, you generally get nothing.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    but this is where the Western ideas of an individual really start to show their limits.. Those careers are (were?) also surrounded physically by social and literal safety. It is an unsafe world! The benefits of being committed and embedded are undeniable, yet many prefer adventure and risk. In good times, the safety seems "boring"; when economics or social circumstances change a lot, safety takes on new importance.
    - ncphil 5y ago
      I think you're onto something there. As a practical matter, the cynical "IP is only for big corporations" is probably right. But that's just an extension of, "the courts are only for the rich". At least here in the US, aside from the occasional (OK, more than occasional) personal injury case undertaken by lawyers on contingency, getting "justice" through the courts is prohibitively expensive for at least 4/5ths of the public. Only the very top of that upper quintile has anything like the resources necessary to go up against anyone wealthier like SAP, Oracle or Google. So yeah, it is an unsafe world and most of us go out into it completely vulnerable. No how rugged an individual you are, you're going to get crushed. That's why extreme individualism is ultimately a dead end for all but the wealthiest (which is to say, the luckiest), few.

That argument may work in a first-year philosophy essay or—equivalently—a post on medium, but something tells me it's not going to hold up in a court, regardless of jurisdiction.

not1ofU 5y ago
China? :-D
- messe 5y ago
  ...I'll concede that one.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

This is correct. IP usually refers to one of: - copyright - trademark - patent Which are legitimate legal constructs in their own right, but they're not property. In this case, I think we're talking about patent infringement. So long as both jurisdictions have agreed to recognize each other's patent laws, it may still be just as illegal as theft. Whether it's as immoral as theft is a different sort of thing (I say it isn't, which is why I nitpick like this).

dathinab 5y ago
In this context we can exclude `trademark`. Also `copyright` is quite unlikely, too. So it's probably mostly patent impingement. And I think we all know how: - large cooperation infringe on patents of smaller ones without relevant consequences all the time - there is an endless number of complete absurd patents wrt. software. The patent system in context of software is fundamentally broken. - due to the US patent system being even more broken then the German one (was at the time the article refers to) the infringed patent might not even have been a valid patent. But what of this points apply to this specific case I don't know.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  Me neither. The only thing that really bothers me about this case is that disregarding IP law is a privilege that you can buy by hiring an army of lawyers. I wish that problematic laws could be ignored equally by all players.

fnord77 5y ago

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "P" in IP "property"?

bsedlm 5y ago
but the substance which is owned (the property) is not material; yet here we are pretending like it is so that people can 'earn a living' for selling the work done by computers.
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
The term was coined by people who benefit when people confuse the two. It's like the "resin identification code" symbol which was crafted to be easily confused with the "recyclable" symbol--disinformation.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  This is such a good example, it was only recently that I learned about the true meaning of that satanic symbol
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    Fewer examples of malicious design are as succinct as the resin identification code. It fooled almost everybody for a while. I wish there were a charity I could donate to that finds companies that engaging in that sort of behavior and sabotages their bottom line in nonviolent ways. If you can convince me that you'll hurt 'em to the tune of $10 for every $1 of mine, I'll have a couple hundred for you.

saas_sam 5y ago

If you spent a few years of your life coming up with a new way of doing something, and a company saw the details of your idea and got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? Should that be illegal?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"If you spent a few years of your life ... got to market before you and never acknowledged you or your work, leaving you with no way to earn a living from your idea, what would you call that? " Being a scientist. Or working in academia. Net worth of greatest scientific minds in history, like Einstein or Heisenberg was less than that of average software dev, let alone bankers/businessmen. At most you can hope to get a Noble Prize, but your discoveries of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics are unpatentable. Fist the journals make money by selling your work, then the companies do, you generally get nothing.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  but this is where the Western ideas of an individual really start to show their limits.. Those careers are (were?) also surrounded physically by social and literal safety. It is an unsafe world! The benefits of being committed and embedded are undeniable, yet many prefer adventure and risk. In good times, the safety seems "boring"; when economics or social circumstances change a lot, safety takes on new importance.
  - ncphil 5y ago
    I think you're onto something there. As a practical matter, the cynical "IP is only for big corporations" is probably right. But that's just an extension of, "the courts are only for the rich". At least here in the US, aside from the occasional (OK, more than occasional) personal injury case undertaken by lawyers on contingency, getting "justice" through the courts is prohibitively expensive for at least 4/5ths of the public. Only the very top of that upper quintile has anything like the resources necessary to go up against anyone wealthier like SAP, Oracle or Google. So yeah, it is an unsafe world and most of us go out into it completely vulnerable. No how rugged an individual you are, you're going to get crushed. That's why extreme individualism is ultimately a dead end for all but the wealthiest (which is to say, the luckiest), few.