Hadron wrote:
>> Xerox Parc had patented the windowing system in 1978 then windows
>
> Another single "if" example.

Pretty big "if". Here's another one for you

Atari vcs patented -> No xbox, playstation etc
Zelda 64's revolutionary 3d control system patented -> scores of
videogames that use the same system would never have happened [none of
which are "stealing" zelda 64].

Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Also (much more recent):
>>>>
>>>> "Nathan Myhrvold: The genesis of this idea was when I was at
>>>> Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these people
>>>> were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates) asked me
>>>> to think about if there was a solution. This is what I came up
>>>> with." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>> Racketeering scum.
>>
>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>>
>
> And while you're at it, please provide a list of 5 original inventions
> your favourtie patent troll from redmond

You don't even know what a patent troll is, but you'll blab it anyway. Like
most cola idiot "advocates*" you can't open your mouth without telling a
stupid lie about Microsoft.



> has come up with in its lifetime. Bet ya dont get to 4. Then list all the
> inventions it
> "copycatted" from elsewhere. Bet that list is a wee bit larger than 5.

No matter what I list you'll make some lame claim that an OSS idiot invented
it twenty years before. Besides which, MS has too many inventions for me to
name - they hold something like 5000 patents.

Among their more well-known tech inventions are:
operating systems: Windows 3x, 9x, NT/2000/2003, Vista
database: ODBC
office: first bundled/integrated office apps
programming/development: Visual Basic/VBA, ActiveX/COM, C#, Visual Studio,
PowerShell
multimedia: Media Center, Media Player
Gaming: DirectX
Gaming consoles: XBox, XBox360
web: contributions to XML and SOAP
other: ClearType font technology

Your problem - the OSS world's problem - is sour grapes, laziness and
jealousy: without a commercial product to steal from, the OSS world has
almost nothing to offer.

DFS wrote:
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> Also (much more recent):
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nathan Myhrvold: The genesis of this idea was when I was at
>>>>> Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these people
>>>>> were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates) asked me
>>>>> to think about if there was a solution. This is what I came up
>>>>> with." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>>> Racketeering scum.
>>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>>>
>> And while you're at it, please provide a list of 5 original inventions
>> your favourtie patent troll from redmond
>
> You don't even know what a patent troll is, but you'll blab it anyway. Like
> most cola idiot "advocates*" you can't open your mouth without telling a
> stupid lie about Microsoft.
>
>
>
>> has come up with in its lifetime. Bet ya dont get to 4. Then list all the
>> inventions it
>> "copycatted" from elsewhere. Bet that list is a wee bit larger than 5.
>
> No matter what I list you'll make some lame claim that an OSS idiot invented
> it twenty years before. Besides which, MS has too many inventions for me to
> name - they hold something like 5000 patents.
>
> Among their more well-known tech inventions are:
> operating systems: Windows 3x, 9x, NT/2000/2003, Vista
> database: ODBC
> office: first bundled/integrated office apps
> programming/development: Visual Basic/VBA, ActiveX/COM, C#, Visual Studio,
> PowerShell
> multimedia: Media Center, Media Player
> Gaming: DirectX
> Gaming consoles: XBox, XBox360
> web: contributions to XML and SOAP
> other: ClearType font technology
>
> Your problem - the OSS world's problem - is sour grapes, laziness and
> jealousy: without a commercial product to steal from, the OSS world has
> almost nothing to offer.

Every single one of these is their take on an earlier version, in
Hardon's words "stealing other people's work". I don't agree with him
but that's not the idiotic point he's making in this thread.

Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> Also (much more recent):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nathan Myhrvold: The genesis of this idea was when I was at
>>>>>> Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these people
>>>>>> were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates) asked me
>>>>>> to think about if there was a solution. This is what I came up
>>>>>> with." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>>>> Racketeering scum.
>>>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>>>>
>>> And while you're at it, please provide a list of 5 original inventions
>>> your favourtie patent troll from redmond
>>
>> You don't even know what a patent troll is, but you'll blab it
>> anyway. Like most cola idiot "advocates*" you can't open your mouth
>> without telling a stupid lie about Microsoft.
>>
>>
>>
>>> has come up with in its lifetime. Bet ya dont get to 4. Then list
>>> all the inventions it
>>> "copycatted" from elsewhere. Bet that list is a wee bit larger than 5.
>>
>> No matter what I list you'll make some lame claim that an OSS idiot
>> invented it twenty years before. Besides which, MS has too many
>> inventions for me to name - they hold something like 5000 patents.
>>
>> Among their more well-known tech inventions are:
>> operating systems: Windows 3x, 9x, NT/2000/2003, Vista
>> database: ODBC
>> office: first bundled/integrated office apps
>> programming/development: Visual Basic/VBA, ActiveX/COM, C#, Visual
>> Studio,
>> PowerShell
>> multimedia: Media Center, Media Player
>> Gaming: DirectX
>> Gaming consoles: XBox, XBox360
>> web: contributions to XML and SOAP
>> other: ClearType font technology
>>
>> Your problem - the OSS world's problem - is sour grapes, laziness and
>> jealousy: without a commercial product to steal from, the OSS world
>> has almost nothing to offer.
>
> Every single one of these is their take on an earlier version, in
> Hardon's words "stealing other people's work". I don't agree with him
> but that's the idiotic point he's making in this thread.

Grammar corrected. Man I just can't multitask

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

>> "All of this fear is from people who have guilty knowledge of their
>> own actions..."

Just the kind of FUD I'd expect from a Patent Troll.

I suppose he has to try to justify his racketeering somehow.

> Every invention is built on top of others that preceded it.

Yes, this is the essence of why ideas cannot be real property.

If I single-handedly build something tangible from my own materials,
then there is no question that the physical fruit of my labour is
uniquely my work, and I should have the right to claim ownership of that
distinct object, and subsequently sell it. And the buyer should then be
equally entitled to claim ownership, since that property has been
completely transferred, and no two physical objects can exist in more
than one place at one time (quantum mechanics theorem notwithstanding).

Of course distinct objects can be owned by more than one person
(partners), but "Intellectual Property" is not about distinct objects,
much less "partnerships", it's about granting "permission" to utilise
something ethereal that has been wrongfully claimed as "property".

If I do a day's work, I am providing labour (a service) which I can
naturally claim as my own, since it is me providing it (there is only
one of me, and I am actually doing the work), and therefore I should be
entitled to claim remuneration (*once*, not in perpetuity) for the
actual work I do, at the time I do it, if so required.

But when it comes to ideas, no one can say with absolute certainty that
any idea is unique, nor where it originated, since it is quite possible
that an idea may well have been considered elsewhere by someone else but
never published. To claim "ownership" of an idea is therefore morally
wrong, and frankly nonsense. And even if by some miracle it could be
incontestably proved that an idea was truly original and unique (as
opposed to simply being *publish* first) then claiming "ownership" is
*still* morally wrong, for the same reason that it would be wrong to
claim "ownership" of a newly discovered aquatic species, simply because
one had observed it. Building things and providing labour is one thing,
but claiming "ownership" of the fundamental building-blocks of existence
is little more than theft, and utterly antithetical to academic
principles. Justifying this theft in the name of supposed financial
"need" to cover research costs, is just an excuse masking greed or
incompetence. The "need" may be there, but the "right" certainly isn't.

Selling an "idea" is little more than renting out a facsimile copy of
what you cannot even guarantee is uniquely yours to sell. The fact that
patent offices facilitate this immoral practise doesn't justify it, IMO.
I don't care about the practical implications one iota. I'd rather that
mankind still lived in caves and hunted wildebeest with spears, than
behaved like gangsters running racketeering operations based on trading
the human soul. Not that it'd ever come to that, of course, since trade
thrived for millennia without such depraved practises, and could easily
continue to do so.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player,
| That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
| And then is heard no more. It is a tale
| Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
| Signifying nothing." ~ Shakespeare
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
17:21:31 up 38 days, 14:34, 5 users, load average: 0.85, 1.14, 0.94

Phil Da Lick! wrote:

>Hadron quacked:
>>
>> (Wintroll tantrum snipped)

Poor Quack. Repeating your snotty lies does not help your case. You
have lost. You are a loser. You are an asshole.

Maybe if your tantrum included some rolling-around on the floor while
holding your breath, it would help. 8)

>And you are a total waste of skin. Read the ****ing words again. If I
>sit down for 12 months and write software its *my* work, nobody else's.

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

>> Nothing is ever "eliminated". We can only strive to protect peoples
>> IP since it costs a lot to develop in most cases.

Knowledge should no more be "owned" than the air, therefore the cost to
unethically claim "ownership" of it is irrelevant.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that simply
investing in something does not actually give you a *right* to a return
on that investment? It's a risk, like any other, and in the case of
"Intellectual Property" the biggest risk is that you have no right to
claim "ownership" of it in the first place.

> This statement alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a
> total and utter lunatic. And yet you still pretend to be an adovcate
> of a system based on freedom. You are an ass.

Hardon advocates anything that contradicts all that is right.

He really is utter scum.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player,
| That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
| And then is heard no more. It is a tale
| Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
| Signifying nothing." ~ Shakespeare
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
17:36:29 up 38 days, 14:49, 5 users, load average: 0.60, 0.97, 1.05

Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
> DFS wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>>
>>> Racketeering scum.
>>
>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>
> prove that

I'd rather he proved the converse, that Intellectual Monopolists' ideas
are actually their own, and that therefore they have a "right" to claim
ownership of them in the first place.

I won't hold my breath.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player,
| That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
| And then is heard no more. It is a tale
| Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
| Signifying nothing." ~ Shakespeare
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
17:43:02 up 38 days, 14:56, 5 users, load average: 0.66, 0.74, 0.90

Homer wrote:

>I'd rather he proved the converse, that Intellectual Monopolists' ideas
>are actually their own, and that therefore they have a "right" to claim
>ownership of them in the first place.
>
>I won't hold my breath.

The trolling fsckwits will just start ranting incoherently about
"freeloaders", as if that proves the case.

--
'"Choice"?. You can keep it.' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ chrisv on Tuesday 23 September 2008 18:00 : \____

> Homer wrote:
>
>>I'd rather he proved the converse, that Intellectual Monopolists' ideas
>>are actually their own, and that therefore they have a "right" to claim
>>ownership of them in the first place.
>>
>>I won't hold my breath.
>
> The trolling fsckwits will just start ranting incoherently about
> "freeloaders", as if that proves the case.

Big Lies are consistent. They are easier for 'the masses' to absorb and
internalise that way.

Keywords/terms: basement, cheap, loon, kids, mother basement, commie.

- --
"There is such an overvaluation of technology stocks that it is absurd. I would
include our stock in that category. It is bad for the long-term worth of the
economy."
--Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjZSyEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo42UQCgnvzCfe4SLD Q/f5R1mADcnDB2
Cq4An2mSYnt4Dg0v2+PS6lR1Vl59tA+m
=rMih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> Also (much more recent):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nathan Myhrvold: The genesis of this idea was when I was at
>>>>>> Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these
>>>>>> people were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates)
>>>>>> asked me to think about if there was a solution. This is what I
>>>>>> came up with."
>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>>>> Racketeering scum.
>>>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>>>>
>>> And while you're at it, please provide a list of 5 original
>>> inventions your favourtie patent troll from redmond
>>
>> You don't even know what a patent troll is, but you'll blab it
>> anyway. Like most cola idiot "advocates*" you can't open your mouth
>> without telling a stupid lie about Microsoft.
>>
>>
>>
>>> has come up with in its lifetime. Bet ya dont get to 4. Then list
>>> all the inventions it
>>> "copycatted" from elsewhere. Bet that list is a wee bit larger than
>>> 5.
>>
>> No matter what I list you'll make some lame claim that an OSS idiot
>> invented it twenty years before. Besides which, MS has too many
>> inventions for me to name - they hold something like 5000 patents.
>>
>> Among their more well-known tech inventions are:
>> operating systems: Windows 3x, 9x, NT/2000/2003, Vista
>> database: ODBC
>> office: first bundled/integrated office apps
>> programming/development: Visual Basic/VBA, ActiveX/COM, C#, Visual
>> Studio, PowerShell
>> multimedia: Media Center, Media Player
>> Gaming: DirectX
>> Gaming consoles: XBox, XBox360
>> web: contributions to XML and SOAP
>> other: ClearType font technology
>>
>> Your problem - the OSS world's problem - is sour grapes, laziness and
>> jealousy: without a commercial product to steal from, the OSS world
>> has almost nothing to offer.
>
> Every single one of these is their take on an earlier version,

I'll let you prove your ridiculous claim. You won't - you're a lazy
OSS pretender - but it's still ridiculous.

DFS wrote:
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>> Also (much more recent):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nathan Myhrvold: The genesis of this idea was when I was at
>>>>>>> Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these
>>>>>>> people were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates)
>>>>>>> asked me to think about if there was a solution. This is what I
>>>>>>> came up with."
>>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142717791833671.html
>>>>>> Racketeering scum.
>>>>> Lazy copycat bum with no ideas of your own.
>>>>>
>>>> And while you're at it, please provide a list of 5 original
>>>> inventions your favourtie patent troll from redmond
>>> You don't even know what a patent troll is, but you'll blab it
>>> anyway. Like most cola idiot "advocates*" you can't open your mouth
>>> without telling a stupid lie about Microsoft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> has come up with in its lifetime. Bet ya dont get to 4. Then list
>>>> all the inventions it
>>>> "copycatted" from elsewhere. Bet that list is a wee bit larger than
>>>> 5.
>>> No matter what I list you'll make some lame claim that an OSS idiot
>>> invented it twenty years before. Besides which, MS has too many
>>> inventions for me to name - they hold something like 5000 patents.
>>>
>>> Among their more well-known tech inventions are:
>>> operating systems: Windows 3x, 9x, NT/2000/2003, Vista
>>> database: ODBC
>>> office: first bundled/integrated office apps
>>> programming/development: Visual Basic/VBA, ActiveX/COM, C#, Visual
>>> Studio, PowerShell
>>> multimedia: Media Center, Media Player
>>> Gaming: DirectX
>>> Gaming consoles: XBox, XBox360
>>> web: contributions to XML and SOAP
>>> other: ClearType font technology
>>>
>>> Your problem - the OSS world's problem - is sour grapes, laziness and
>>> jealousy: without a commercial product to steal from, the OSS world
>>> has almost nothing to offer.
>> Every single one of these is their take on an earlier version,
>
> I'll let you prove your ridiculous claim. You won't - you're a lazy
> OSS pretender - but it's still ridiculous.


Windows was not the first windowing system.
As Homer notes, a lot of these were assimilated.
In fact the only original thing there is ActiveX/COM and I'm sure
there's a precendent for that.

You guys need to make your minds up. Are you for a draconian patent
system that if in place 20 years ago meant we'd now currently have none
of these things, or are you for a free market which allowed MS to build
up these products and sell them. Bill Gates was not joking when he made
his comment about patents in 1991, he knows very well the effect it is
having on the software market. But hey, as long as its not your beloved
MS that gets strangled then who cares, right?

Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
>> Hadron wrote:
>
>>> "All of this fear is from people who have guilty knowledge of their
>>> own actions..."
>
> Just the kind of FUD I'd expect from a Patent Troll.
>
> I suppose he has to try to justify his racketeering somehow.
>
>> Every invention is built on top of others that preceded it.
>
> Yes, this is the essence of why ideas cannot be real property.
>
> If I single-handedly build something tangible from my own materials,
> then there is no question that the physical fruit of my labour is
> uniquely my work, and I should have the right to claim ownership of that
> distinct object, and subsequently sell it. And the buyer should then be
> equally entitled to claim ownership, since that property has been
> completely transferred, and no two physical objects can exist in more
> than one place at one time (quantum mechanics theorem notwithstanding).
>
> Of course distinct objects can be owned by more than one person
> (partners), but "Intellectual Property" is not about distinct objects,
> much less "partnerships", it's about granting "permission" to utilise
> something ethereal that has been wrongfully claimed as "property".
>
> If I do a day's work, I am providing labour (a service) which I can
> naturally claim as my own, since it is me providing it (there is only
> one of me, and I am actually doing the work), and therefore I should be
> entitled to claim remuneration (*once*, not in perpetuity) for the
> actual work I do, at the time I do it, if so required.
>
> But when it comes to ideas, no one can say with absolute certainty that
> any idea is unique, nor where it originated, since it is quite possible
> that an idea may well have been considered elsewhere by someone else but
> never published. To claim "ownership" of an idea is therefore morally
> wrong, and frankly nonsense. And even if by some miracle it could be
> incontestably proved that an idea was truly original and unique (as
> opposed to simply being *publish* first) then claiming "ownership" is
> *still* morally wrong, for the same reason that it would be wrong to
> claim "ownership" of a newly discovered aquatic species, simply because
> one had observed it. Building things and providing labour is one thing,
> but claiming "ownership" of the fundamental building-blocks of existence
> is little more than theft, and utterly antithetical to academic
> principles. Justifying this theft in the name of supposed financial
> "need" to cover research costs, is just an excuse masking greed or
> incompetence. The "need" may be there, but the "right" certainly isn't.
>
> Selling an "idea" is little more than renting out a facsimile copy of
> what you cannot even guarantee is uniquely yours to sell. The fact that
> patent offices facilitate this immoral practise doesn't justify it, IMO.
> I don't care about the practical implications one iota. I'd rather that
> mankind still lived in caves and hunted wildebeest with spears, than
> behaved like gangsters running racketeering operations based on trading
> the human soul. Not that it'd ever come to that, of course, since trade
> thrived for millennia without such depraved practises, and could easily
> continue to do so.
>

Trouble is there is always a section of society with the morals of a
shark who don't care about the greater good. All they care about is
themselves.