4 ms·

While the author is correct, the tone feels so wrong. It's terrible that laws exist that make knowing certain information a liability to embark on creative ende

While the author is correct, the tone feels so wrong. It's terrible that laws exist that make knowing certain information a liability to embark on creative endeavors. Just a very real view on why IP laws are harmful (despite potential upsides). Also, what are the kind of super secrets in drivers? If the secrets are so valuable, certainly competitors would have no trouble simply getting a spy to work as an employee. Or just RE from the binaries. It reminds me of the idiocy of Canon and Nikon in refusing to document their raw formats.

rayiner 12y ago
> It's terrible that laws exist that make knowing certain information a liability to embark on creative endeavors. Why? We don't find anything objectionable about the law extending property rights to, say, land, which we had no hand in creating and will continue to exist long after we're all dead, so why find an objection to Imagination having property rights over something that is wholly their creation? I would argue that to the extent you can morally justify any sort of property rights, copyright and trade secret more more justifiable than nearly any other kind. Furthermore, I don't see what creative endeavor is being harmed here. It reduces the meaning of creative to nothing if you apply it to reverse engineering efforts, which are the opposite of creative--they are derivative.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Well, with land ownership, there's the small matter of the Pauli exclusion principle.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    We consider it acceptable for someone to own a thousand acres of ranch land that they only visit in the summer. Clearly our understanding is not based purely on the rival nature of land.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Having the land to keep it as-is for the next summer is also a rivalrous use.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- 1ris 12y ago
  Land ownership and IP are completely different, for example because nobody ever, and fortunately it'll forever impossible, paied property taxes on ideas/discoveries/thoughts.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Actually I like that idea. If patent holders were required to state an expected value for their claims and had to pay property taxes on that expected value every year, we'd see far fewer stupid patents held by unproductive trolls. (And fewer outlandish damage awards since the expected value could be cited in court.)
- icebraining 12y ago
  Private property is a system that's useful to reduce conflicts that arise from two properties of land: rivalry and scarcity. Ideas and other creations need to such system, since they can be shared infinitely and concurrently. Also, the "wholly their creation" is often untrue, especially when it comes to patents. It's often just a result of having the money and/or knowledge to submit it. Multiple people can and have came up with the same patentable concept independently.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Implementing an API can still be creative. I wasn't allowed to work on Mono, as I had MS source code access. Just on virtue of having perused MS's source, I couldn't participate. I understand the reasoning, but the end result feels wrong.
wtallis 12y ago
The secrets contained in drivers and firmware aren't valuable, merely dangerous. Having the source to a graphics driver doesn't make it much easier to design graphics hardware, but it does make it a lot easier to identify and prove patent infringement, and it makes it easier to circumvent arbitrary restrictions that exist for purposes like product segmentation or DRM.
- userbinator 12y ago
  They are only "dangerous" from the point of view of the company.

rayiner 12y ago

> It's terrible that laws exist that make knowing certain information a liability to embark on creative endeavors. Why? We don't find anything objectionable about the law extending property rights to, say, land, which we had no hand in creating and will continue to exist long after we're all dead, so why find an objection to Imagination having property rights over something that is wholly their creation? I would argue that to the extent you can morally justify any sort of property rights, copyright and trade secret more more justifiable than nearly any other kind. Furthermore, I don't see what creative endeavor is being harmed here. It reduces the meaning of creative to nothing if you apply it to reverse engineering efforts, which are the opposite of creative--they are derivative.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Well, with land ownership, there's the small matter of the Pauli exclusion principle.
- rayiner 12y ago
  We consider it acceptable for someone to own a thousand acres of ranch land that they only visit in the summer. Clearly our understanding is not based purely on the rival nature of land.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Having the land to keep it as-is for the next summer is also a rivalrous use.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
1ris 12y ago
Land ownership and IP are completely different, for example because nobody ever, and fortunately it'll forever impossible, paied property taxes on ideas/discoveries/thoughts.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Actually I like that idea. If patent holders were required to state an expected value for their claims and had to pay property taxes on that expected value every year, we'd see far fewer stupid patents held by unproductive trolls. (And fewer outlandish damage awards since the expected value could be cited in court.)
icebraining 12y ago
Private property is a system that's useful to reduce conflicts that arise from two properties of land: rivalry and scarcity. Ideas and other creations need to such system, since they can be shared infinitely and concurrently. Also, the "wholly their creation" is often untrue, especially when it comes to patents. It's often just a result of having the money and/or knowledge to submit it. Multiple people can and have came up with the same patentable concept independently.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
MichaelGG 12y ago
Implementing an API can still be creative. I wasn't allowed to work on Mono, as I had MS source code access. Just on virtue of having perused MS's source, I couldn't participate. I understand the reasoning, but the end result feels wrong.

wtallis 12y ago

The secrets contained in drivers and firmware aren't valuable, merely dangerous. Having the source to a graphics driver doesn't make it much easier to design graphics hardware, but it does make it a lot easier to identify and prove patent infringement, and it makes it easier to circumvent arbitrary restrictions that exist for purposes like product segmentation or DRM.

userbinator 12y ago
They are only "dangerous" from the point of view of the company.