3 ms·

Because these folks deserve to eat and pay rent for a few years upon discovering something so useful.

by cushychicken 5y ago

krageon 5y ago
So make that part of the mission statement. There's no need to pretend to be a bunch of saints.
- todd8 5y ago
  I don't really see it that way. Yes, the about link leads to a page where the goal of improving the way people can read is described, but it would be odd to see them say, "and we expect to make money from working on this project". Each of us is motivated by different goals. I am motivated to have a comfortable life, and I've worked for different companies over time to achieve this. I also find personal satisfaction in helping others so I've occasionally make charitable contributions of time and money, but I don't expect that everyone else is going to make the same choices I have. We don't know the motivation that drove the inventors of this new reading technology. Maybe it was to simply make money for riotous living, but it could be that they have a critically sick partner that needs expensive surgery. These are personal and private choices that I don't feel a need to weigh. Improved reading technology sounds like a good thing for not just the inventor, but for all of us. When I buy some peaches from a farmer at a stand by the highway, I want the peach more than I want the dollar I have in my pocket. The farmer wants the dollar more than the peach. After I buy the peach we are both better off. I don't need to feel that the farmer is a non-profit farmer. I expect the farmer to be happier after the sale, for otherwise next year he may not even be there for my benefit during peach season. What I do expect, is that the farmer doesn't misrepresent his product, that he doesn't steal my credit card number, that he holds up his side of the bargain; if so, next year, I will be there to buy his peaches again. I've invented a number of important technologies and benefited from doing so. Some, when I worked for others, ended up being patented. Such is the environment we find ourselves in, but for many of my ideas I chose not to protect them by patents and let these be adopted by standards organizations instead. Personally, I don't think patents are a good fit for software, and I would rather see better use of copyright protection for software or a simpler much shorter patent, say three years for software. The open source software movement has been an amazing gift to humanity, but so has the deluge of products (and peaches) produced for the profit motive.
LewisVerstappen 5y ago
If we expect everyone to innovate and build useful tools solely out of the goodness of their heart, then we can expect far fewer useful tools & innovations in the future.
- irutiw22 5y ago
  I think the opposite is true. Patents are hampering further progress that would built upon the innovation or make use of it to increase productivity. but said progress often is not happening, if the costs of obtaining a license is high, or if first tedious communication has to happen with the author to obtain green light to use his invention. Rapid innovation looks different. If you innovate without filing a patent, you get a head start. The time the you have until other catch on - that is how you can monetize your invention.
bogwog 5y ago
It’s disingenuous to say they want as many people as possible to use it while at the same time filing a patent application. That’s like Microsoft saying they want as many people as possible to use Azure: no shit
irutiw22 5y ago
I have mentioned this a few times here already, but I will mention it again, even if I risk looking like a spammer, as it seems this point hans't been made strongly enough in this thread: This discovery is not new. A different company published almost an identical product more than 3 years ago (see https://web.archive.org/web/20190119032121/http://br.craftworks.at/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190119032121/http://br.craftwo... as well as my top-level comment). So I am absolutely against patenting something that is 1) not new 2) that has a very simple implementation and could thus easily be disseminated widely if patents weren't "protecting" it. Reminds me strongly of the various patent wars regarding scrolling on the smartphone and other simple user interface gestures; in the end everyone looses out.
- cushychicken 5y ago
  Then take them to court to have the patent nullified. Seems like a great use of time.

Because these folks deserve to eat and pay rent for a few years upon discovering something so useful.

krageon 5y ago

So make that part of the mission statement. There's no need to pretend to be a bunch of saints.

todd8 5y ago
I don't really see it that way. Yes, the about link leads to a page where the goal of improving the way people can read is described, but it would be odd to see them say, "and we expect to make money from working on this project". Each of us is motivated by different goals. I am motivated to have a comfortable life, and I've worked for different companies over time to achieve this. I also find personal satisfaction in helping others so I've occasionally make charitable contributions of time and money, but I don't expect that everyone else is going to make the same choices I have. We don't know the motivation that drove the inventors of this new reading technology. Maybe it was to simply make money for riotous living, but it could be that they have a critically sick partner that needs expensive surgery. These are personal and private choices that I don't feel a need to weigh. Improved reading technology sounds like a good thing for not just the inventor, but for all of us. When I buy some peaches from a farmer at a stand by the highway, I want the peach more than I want the dollar I have in my pocket. The farmer wants the dollar more than the peach. After I buy the peach we are both better off. I don't need to feel that the farmer is a non-profit farmer. I expect the farmer to be happier after the sale, for otherwise next year he may not even be there for my benefit during peach season. What I do expect, is that the farmer doesn't misrepresent his product, that he doesn't steal my credit card number, that he holds up his side of the bargain; if so, next year, I will be there to buy his peaches again. I've invented a number of important technologies and benefited from doing so. Some, when I worked for others, ended up being patented. Such is the environment we find ourselves in, but for many of my ideas I chose not to protect them by patents and let these be adopted by standards organizations instead. Personally, I don't think patents are a good fit for software, and I would rather see better use of copyright protection for software or a simpler much shorter patent, say three years for software. The open source software movement has been an amazing gift to humanity, but so has the deluge of products (and peaches) produced for the profit motive.

LewisVerstappen 5y ago

If we expect everyone to innovate and build useful tools solely out of the goodness of their heart, then we can expect far fewer useful tools & innovations in the future.

irutiw22 5y ago
I think the opposite is true. Patents are hampering further progress that would built upon the innovation or make use of it to increase productivity. but said progress often is not happening, if the costs of obtaining a license is high, or if first tedious communication has to happen with the author to obtain green light to use his invention. Rapid innovation looks different. If you innovate without filing a patent, you get a head start. The time the you have until other catch on - that is how you can monetize your invention.

bogwog 5y ago

It’s disingenuous to say they want as many people as possible to use it while at the same time filing a patent application. That’s like Microsoft saying they want as many people as possible to use Azure: no shit

irutiw22 5y ago

I have mentioned this a few times here already, but I will mention it again, even if I risk looking like a spammer, as it seems this point hans't been made strongly enough in this thread: This discovery is not new. A different company published almost an identical product more than 3 years ago (see https://web.archive.org/web/20190119032121/http://br.craftworks.at/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190119032121/http://br.craftwo... as well as my top-level comment). So I am absolutely against patenting something that is 1) not new 2) that has a very simple implementation and could thus easily be disseminated widely if patents weren't "protecting" it. Reminds me strongly of the various patent wars regarding scrolling on the smartphone and other simple user interface gestures; in the end everyone looses out.

cushychicken 5y ago
Then take them to court to have the patent nullified. Seems like a great use of time.