4 ms·

This kind of public shaming shouldn't happen at all. Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. The patent system is the problem, n

by id 12y ago

This kind of public shaming shouldn't happen at all. Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. Because that's what companies in capitalism do, using everything to their advantage.

bullseye 12y ago
>> Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents. The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.
- zo1 12y ago
  "The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions." Wow, that's such a loaded analogy. You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion. All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.
  - bullseye 12y ago
    In the context of the conversation, we've been talking about Amazon. You're right... I don't agree with their usage. This isn't some small little guy bravely trying to fight off the wolves with a few patents they got their hands on. I don't see many examples of them using patent system to do "what it was built to do". I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.
gillianseed 12y ago
>The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. How do you think the patent system ended up granting basically everything in the first place? Like with practically everything benefiting huge companies in the US, it's the result of intense corporate bri... lobbying.
- zo1 12y ago
  "How do you think the patent system ended up granting basically everything in the first place? Like with practically everything benefiting huge companies in the US, it's the result of intense corporate bri... lobbying." Well, this is the effect of the democracy that you people have created and nurtured over the years. Why do you want to blame the companies that have stepped in to take advantage of the rules you have set forth? And yes, that includes giving them the power to affect the rules.
  - gillianseed 12y ago
    >Well, this is the effect of the democracy that you people have created and nurtured over the years. Why do you want to blame the companies that have stepped in to take advantage of the rules you have set forth? I haven't nurtured this form of democracy at all (lobbying), I'm from Sweden, not the US. Nor do I believe that the actual voters have 'nurtured' this form of paid influence, if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this.
    - zo1 12y ago
      They have nurtured it if they did nothing to stop it. Either way, they set up their form of governance initially and then didn't bother to continuously monitor it and adjust accordingly. They deserve everything that is happening to them precisely because of their in-action through their crappy voting. It may not be nice, but that's the reality of it. At this stage, only radical things will fix it. "if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this." Yes, there is the rub. They probably would vote that way, I agree with you. Except they can't. They're divided and powerless to demand any sort of referendum. Heck, one need only look at recent approval polls for congress/president/law to see that the majority are NOT happy. Yet, they plow on and do nothing except whine and vote.

by id 12y ago

bullseye 12y ago

>> Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents. The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.

zo1 12y ago
"The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions." Wow, that's such a loaded analogy. You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion. All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.
- bullseye 12y ago
  In the context of the conversation, we've been talking about Amazon. You're right... I don't agree with their usage. This isn't some small little guy bravely trying to fight off the wolves with a few patents they got their hands on. I don't see many examples of them using patent system to do "what it was built to do". I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.

gillianseed 12y ago

>The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. How do you think the patent system ended up granting basically everything in the first place? Like with practically everything benefiting huge companies in the US, it's the result of intense corporate bri... lobbying.

zo1 12y ago
"How do you think the patent system ended up granting basically everything in the first place? Like with practically everything benefiting huge companies in the US, it's the result of intense corporate bri... lobbying." Well, this is the effect of the democracy that you people have created and nurtured over the years. Why do you want to blame the companies that have stepped in to take advantage of the rules you have set forth? And yes, that includes giving them the power to affect the rules.
- gillianseed 12y ago
  >Well, this is the effect of the democracy that you people have created and nurtured over the years. Why do you want to blame the companies that have stepped in to take advantage of the rules you have set forth? I haven't nurtured this form of democracy at all (lobbying), I'm from Sweden, not the US. Nor do I believe that the actual voters have 'nurtured' this form of paid influence, if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this.
  - zo1 12y ago
    They have nurtured it if they did nothing to stop it. Either way, they set up their form of governance initially and then didn't bother to continuously monitor it and adjust accordingly. They deserve everything that is happening to them precisely because of their in-action through their crappy voting. It may not be nice, but that's the reality of it. At this stage, only radical things will fix it. "if it were ever to be subject to a specific vote then I'm certain that the vast majority of american voters would be against this." Yes, there is the rub. They probably would vote that way, I agree with you. Except they can't. They're divided and powerless to demand any sort of referendum. Heck, one need only look at recent approval polls for congress/president/law to see that the majority are NOT happy. Yet, they plow on and do nothing except whine and vote.