Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge - Linux ; In article , Homer wrote: > And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway? > > Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught, > rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

  1. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >
    > Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    > rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    > to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that


    So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    merely sum up what you've been taught?

    > which has been collected from others, such as authors; teachers; parents
    > and peers? Are those contributors not equally entitled to attribution


    Everything you've every done that appears to be creative actually comes
    from your teachers, parents, etc.?

    (One might wonder where your teachers, parents, etc. got what they gave
    to you, since they didn't make new knowledge. Theirs came from their
    parents or teachers and so on. So where did this knowledge actually
    originally come from?)


    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    "Tim Smith" stated in post
    reply_in_group-9C0AEC.21473503072008@news.supernews.com on 7/3/08 9:47 PM:

    > In article , Homer
    > wrote:
    >> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>
    >> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that

    >
    > So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    > merely sum up what you've been taught?
    >
    >> which has been collected from others, such as authors; teachers; parents
    >> and peers? Are those contributors not equally entitled to attribution

    >
    > Everything you've every done that appears to be creative actually comes
    > from your teachers, parents, etc.?
    >
    > (One might wonder where your teachers, parents, etc. got what they gave
    > to you, since they didn't make new knowledge. Theirs came from their
    > parents or teachers and so on. So where did this knowledge actually
    > originally come from?)
    >

    Me.


    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  3. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:47:35 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article , Homer
    > wrote:
    >> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>
    >> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that

    >
    > So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    > merely sum up what you've been taught?


    That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge would never
    grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything new, just rehashed
    everyone before him.

    >> which has been collected from others, such as authors; teachers; parents
    >> and peers? Are those contributors not equally entitled to attribution

    >
    > Everything you've every done that appears to be creative actually comes
    > from your teachers, parents, etc.?
    >
    > (One might wonder where your teachers, parents, etc. got what they gave
    > to you, since they didn't make new knowledge. Theirs came from their
    > parents or teachers and so on. So where did this knowledge actually
    > originally come from?)


    Aliens, i bet.

  4. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:47:35 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article , Homer
    >> wrote:
    >>> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>>
    >>> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >>> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >>> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that

    >> So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    >> merely sum up what you've been taught?

    >
    > That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge would never
    > grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything new, just rehashed
    > everyone before him.



    Again with the deliberate misinterpretation. Einstein did not "rehash"
    anything. What he had been taught in his life prepared him to make great
    steps forward. Would he have made those without his prior
    knowledge/experience? I doubt it very much.

  5. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:40:32 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:47:35 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article , Homer
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>>>
    >>>> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >>>> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >>>> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that
    >>> So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    >>> merely sum up what you've been taught?

    >>
    >> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge would never
    >> grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything new, just rehashed
    >> everyone before him.

    >
    > Again with the deliberate misinterpretation. Einstein did not "rehash"
    > anything. What he had been taught in his life prepared him to make great
    > steps forward. Would he have made those without his prior
    > knowledge/experience? I doubt it very much.


    We're not misinterpreting you. Maybe you're misstating your opinion.

    You've argued that the teachers have just as much right to the credit of an
    invention as does the inventor, so by your logic einsteins teachers should
    have their names on the the general theory of relativity as well.

    Ironically, your argument works against your point. Because much of modern
    technology would not exist without patents protecting the inventions, yet
    you refuse to give credit to patent law for it's results.

    You should really stop flip-flopping like this.

  6. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:40:32 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:47:35 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article , Homer
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >>>>> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >>>>> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that
    >>>> So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    >>>> merely sum up what you've been taught?
    >>> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge would never
    >>> grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything new, just rehashed
    >>> everyone before him.

    >> Again with the deliberate misinterpretation. Einstein did not "rehash"
    >> anything. What he had been taught in his life prepared him to make great
    >> steps forward. Would he have made those without his prior
    >> knowledge/experience? I doubt it very much.

    >
    > We're not misinterpreting you. Maybe you're misstating your opinion.


    Erm. It wasnt my point. It was Homer's.


    > You've argued that the teachers have just as much right to the credit of an
    > invention as does the inventor, so by your logic einsteins teachers should
    > have their names on the the general theory of relativity as well.


    Again, I made no such argument.


    > Ironically, your argument works against your point. Because much of modern
    > technology would not exist without patents protecting the inventions, yet
    > you refuse to give credit to patent law for it's results.


    You're generalising again. You cannot apply the same principles to the
    software industry as say the engineering industry. It has been proven
    (and admitted by bill gates) that patenting is bad for the software
    industry. Microsoft are only for patents now because at this time a
    patenting regime is seen as good for microsoft. They're just looking for
    anything to cling onto their monopoly. Like IBM did 20-30 years ago. And
    like IBM, they'll ultimately fail, but in the meantime how many whizkids
    with great ideas will get stomped? Like IBM, MS will have to eventually
    reinvent themselves.



  7. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:08:53 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

    >> Ironically, your argument works against your point. Because much of modern
    >> technology would not exist without patents protecting the inventions, yet
    >> you refuse to give credit to patent law for it's results.

    >
    > You're generalising again. You cannot apply the same principles to the
    > software industry as say the engineering industry. It has been proven
    > (and admitted by bill gates) that patenting is bad for the software
    > industry. Microsoft are only for patents now because at this time a
    > patenting regime is seen as good for microsoft. They're just looking for
    > anything to cling onto their monopoly. Like IBM did 20-30 years ago. And
    > like IBM, they'll ultimately fail, but in the meantime how many whizkids
    > with great ideas will get stomped? Like IBM, MS will have to eventually
    > reinvent themselves.


    There is absolutely zero evidence to support that. Unlike IBM, Microsoft
    has never filed an offensive patent lawsuit, and it's unlikely IMO that
    they ever will.

    People have been claiming Microsoft is about to sue for patent infringement
    for more than 10 years. It hasn't happened yet, and there is no indication
    it will happen any time soon.

  8. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > Unlike IBM, Microsoft
    > has never filed an offensive patent lawsuit, and it's unlikely IMO that
    > they ever will.


    Then why apply for 1000+ per year. If they feel they're down to their
    last shot they'll do it.

  9. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:19:34 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > > Unlike IBM, Microsoft
    >> has never filed an offensive patent lawsuit, and it's unlikely IMO that
    >> they ever will.

    >
    > Then why apply for 1000+ per year. If they feel they're down to their
    > last shot they'll do it.


    Because a patent arsenal protects you from other companies patent arsenals.
    If you don't have them, you're vulnerable. That's why Red Hat has patents
    too.

  10. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:19:34 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> > Unlike IBM, Microsoft
    >>> has never filed an offensive patent lawsuit, and it's unlikely IMO that
    >>> they ever will.

    >> Then why apply for 1000+ per year. If they feel they're down to their
    >> last shot they'll do it.

    >
    > Because a patent arsenal protects you from other companies patent arsenals.
    > If you don't have them, you're vulnerable. That's why Red Hat has patents
    > too.


    Thats the most stupid circular argument ever. And you're making the same
    mistake the dumb**** politicians who buy into this crap make - you're
    judging the software industry to be a collection of big boys all in a
    status quo. Thats all fine and dandy but the industry also has lots and
    lots of little guys, any of which may one day have the next big thing
    that makes everyone's life better but unforutnately they have no
    protection against the big boys. Which was what the patent system is
    *meant* to promote - protecting the little guy so he'll bring his
    knowledge and innovation to the world table. ANd that is why the patent
    system does not lend itself well to the software industry.

  11. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:24:28 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:19:34 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> > Unlike IBM, Microsoft
    >>>> has never filed an offensive patent lawsuit, and it's unlikely IMO that
    >>>> they ever will.
    >>> Then why apply for 1000+ per year. If they feel they're down to their
    >>> last shot they'll do it.

    >>
    >> Because a patent arsenal protects you from other companies patent arsenals.
    >> If you don't have them, you're vulnerable. That's why Red Hat has patents
    >> too.

    >
    > Thats the most stupid circular argument ever.


    Regardless of what you believe, it's true and fact. Microsoft had no
    patents (or very few) until they started getting sued over them. Their
    patent arsenal has allowed them to settle hundreds of lawsuits and is a
    bargaining chip to create cross-licensing agreements with others who would
    just as easily sue you as look at you.

    You may think it's stupid, but it's reality.

    > And you're making the same mistake the dumb**** politicians who buy into
    > this crap make


    I'm not making any kind of mistake. It's reality. If you don't have
    patents, you are extremely vulnerable to patent lawsuits. Period. You're
    still vulnerable even with a portfolio, but you're only vulnerable from
    patent trolls who don't make products themselves.

    > - you're
    > judging the software industry to be a collection of big boys all in a
    > status quo. Thats all fine and dandy but the industry also has lots and
    > lots of little guys, any of which may one day have the next big thing
    > that makes everyone's life better but unforutnately they have no
    > protection against the big boys. Which was what the patent system is
    > *meant* to promote - protecting the little guy so he'll bring his
    > knowledge and innovation to the world table. ANd that is why the patent
    > system does not lend itself well to the software industry.


    You're making the mistake of judging patents in general based on a poorly
    implemented patent system.

  12. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> And you're making the same mistake the dumb**** politicians who buy into
    >> this crap make

    >
    > I'm not making any kind of mistake. It's reality. If you don't have
    > patents, you are extremely vulnerable to patent lawsuits. Period. You're
    > still vulnerable even with a portfolio, but you're only vulnerable from
    > patent trolls who don't make products themselves.


    Precisely the problem. This was never what the patent system was
    intended for. The system was meant to (a) bring trade secrets into the
    public domain to advance public knowledge and (b) provide a measure of
    protection for the most vulnerable of entreprenuers - ie allow the
    little guy time to build his assets to market his invention whilst
    preventing a megacorporation from using their assets to beat him to
    market while he does. It was never intended as a barrier to entry. It
    was never intended to provide protection for mega corps.


    >> - you're
    >> judging the software industry to be a collection of big boys all in a
    >> status quo. Thats all fine and dandy but the industry also has lots and
    >> lots of little guys, any of which may one day have the next big thing
    >> that makes everyone's life better but unforutnately they have no
    >> protection against the big boys. Which was what the patent system is
    >> *meant* to promote - protecting the little guy so he'll bring his
    >> knowledge and innovation to the world table. ANd that is why the patent
    >> system does not lend itself well to the software industry.

    >
    > You're making the mistake of judging patents in general based on a poorly
    > implemented patent system.


    And you're making the mistake of the "thats just the way it is"
    argument. If everyone in history had taken that approach to life there'd
    be no USA right now - it'd still be a colony of britain. You'd also have
    a whole lotta slavery going on.

    And the system would be no better at all even if the quality issue were
    addressed.

    Here's a proposal for a solution - only allow SMEs to file patents. Big
    boys dont actually need them. They have the resources for R&D, product
    development, decent marketting decisions already in place.

  13. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> Well duh. There's a big difference between building a space shuttle and
    >> sitting down and creating a new software application, or even an
    >> alternative application that does something better than the rest.

    >
    > So where do you draw the line? And what happens when that SME just barely
    > crosses it?


    Wherever the line is drawn it wont be perfect but it has to be a better
    situation than now. This is the whole point - with a patent regime
    you're never gonna get the "right" mix - better to just abolish pure
    software patents.


    > Also, don't forget that most patent trolls are SME's.


    Not quite. They're SMEs with some funding. If a genuine SME with an
    invention had funding in place it could be argued that he doesnt really
    need a patent by the original definition of patents.

  14. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On 2008-07-04, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:40:32 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:47:35 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article , Homer
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> And how original are anyone's thoughts anyway?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Surely our knowledge is merely the sum of what we have been taught,
    >>>>> rather than some divine gift handed down from God, entitling the bearer
    >>>>> to exclusive privileges. How can anyone claim exclusive rights to that
    >>>> So you are saying you add nothing original to human knowledge, but
    >>>> merely sum up what you've been taught?
    >>>
    >>> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge would never
    >>> grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything new, just rehashed
    >>> everyone before him.

    >>
    >> Again with the deliberate misinterpretation. Einstein did not "rehash"
    >> anything. What he had been taught in his life prepared him to make great
    >> steps forward. Would he have made those without his prior
    >> knowledge/experience? I doubt it very much.

    >
    > We're not misinterpreting you. Maybe you're misstating your opinion.


    It really depends on the idea.

    Calculus and planetary motion don't seem so creative or interesting.

    General Relativity is much more so. I order for you false strawman
    to work you've got to demonstrate how his exact idea would have
    "deprived" Einstein of credit.

    Although I am not sure what sort of "intellectual property" is involved
    anyways. Einstein never claimed the right to exclude others from using
    his work. That's the key thing here.

    >
    > You've argued that the teachers have just as much right to the credit of an
    > invention as does the inventor, so by your logic einsteins teachers should


    Kinda yes and no.

    Nothing is the same as nothing.

    > have their names on the the general theory of relativity as well.
    >
    > Ironically, your argument works against your point. Because much of modern
    > technology would not exist without patents protecting the inventions, yet


    That is just a bald assertion.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.

    > you refuse to give credit to patent law for it's results.
    >
    > You should really stop flip-flopping like this.



    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  15. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    >>> Because a patent arsenal protects you from other companies patent
    >>> arsenals. If you don't have them, you're vulnerable. That's why
    >>> Red Hat has patents too.

    >> Thats the most stupid circular argument ever.

    >
    > No actually he's right. Patents are an arms-race.


    Yeah that was my point.

  16. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    In article <94o1k5-p9s.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    wrote:
    > >> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge
    > >> would never grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything
    > >> new, just rehashed everyone before him.

    >
    > So you're claiming that Einstein drew his conclusions without any prior
    > knowledge of maths and physics, and that E=mc2 just popped into his head
    > from nowhere, based on no established principles whatsoever?


    No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  17. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    In article <94o1k5-p9s.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    wrote:
    > You cannot know that which you haven't already been taught, or observed
    > with your own eyes, and observation is /discovery/ ... not "invention".
    > Where else would this data come from ... we're not /born/ imprinted with
    > certain knowledge, beyond the unquantifiable property known as instinct.


    How do you explain, then, works of literature? Were the authors taught
    the stories they wrote, or did they discover them through observation?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge


    Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > In article <94o1k5-p9s.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    > wrote:
    > > >> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge
    > > >> would never grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything
    > > >> new, just rehashed everyone before him.

    > >
    > > So you're claiming that Einstein drew his conclusions without any prior
    > > knowledge of maths and physics, and that E=mc2 just popped into his head
    > > from nowhere, based on no established principles whatsoever?

    >
    > No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    > Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.


    To wit:

    http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index5.html

    ------
    Copyright Requests

    In accordance with Albert Einstein's Last Will and Testament of 1950,
    the Hebrew University of Jerusalem holds the copyright to all of his
    writings. All of Einstein's published and unpublished writings are
    copyrighted to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All requests
    pertaining to the planned publication of materials from Einstein's
    writings should be sent to the Albert Einstein Archives. Please refer to
    the following price lists.
    Users who first publish without permission and only later apply will be
    subjected to 150% of the herewith quoted prices.



    Price list for the use in non-commercial publication:

    Item Price in US$
    Photo 180.00
    Photo on cover of publication 600.00-1200.00 *
    Reproduction of manuscript 120.00
    Quotation of entire letter 60.00
    Quotation of entire article 120.00




    * depends on to what extent the publication focuses on Albert Einstein.
    Publications whose content is less directly related to Albert Einstein
    will mandate a higher fee.



    Price list for the use in commercial publication:

    Please send the details of your request to our office
    aearequests@savion.huji.ac.il.
    The price for commercial publications is calculated as a function of
    retail price, number of copies and percentage of content of licenced
    material in the publication. The amounts for non-commercial fees
    mentioned above constitute a minimum and commercial fees cannot fall
    below them.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Back]
    -----

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  19. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    On 2008-07-04, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <94o1k5-p9s.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    > wrote:
    >> >> That's an odd thought. If that were the case, human knowledge
    >> >> would never grow. Einstein didn't actually come up with anything
    >> >> new, just rehashed everyone before him.

    >>
    >> So you're claiming that Einstein drew his conclusions without any prior
    >> knowledge of maths and physics, and that E=mc2 just popped into his head
    >> from nowhere, based on no established principles whatsoever?

    >
    > No, he's not claiming that. He's disagreeing with your claim that
    > Einstein's work is just a rehash of all that came before him.


    I suspect that NO ONE participating in this discussion is qualified
    to make such a judgement. I also suspect that Einstein would have been
    the first person to minimize his own role in his discovery and would be
    quick to give/share credit those that came before him.

    I see in other fields that those that are experts are quite often
    able to quickly see highly derivative work where all of the other n00bs
    are prone to see creativity.

    --
    Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
    continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
    simple date manipulations in postgres.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  20. Re: The "right" to "own" knowledge

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > Such "rights" only currently exist in /law/ because a system that worked
    > perfect well /before/ the existence of these unethical laws became
    > /corrupted/ by greedy monopolisers. These "rights" exist purely for
    > reasons of unethical business considerations (racketeering), not for any
    > academic purpose, and certainly not for the benefit of society or even
    > capitalism. Monopolies are entirely antithetical to the principles of
    > the Free Market Economy.


    Nonsense. Have you every actually read any of the academic literature
    on economics and/or law? Most economists and legal theorists have
    concluded that patents do benefit society.

    That's because they don't ignore what you keep ignoring: if innovators
    can't recoup R&D costs, they aren't going to invest in innovating. If
    it costs a billion dollars to develop, say, a new drug, but as soon as
    it is released anyone can reverse engineer it and start manufacturing it
    cheaply, how will the company that spent the billion get that back?

    Here's what appears to be a good introduction to how economists look at
    patents and copyrights:



    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast