|In reply to Comment 26 (Darrin):|
">You mean like the GIF-patents
Nobody is forced to use GIF's. There are a lot more formats out there. If someone designs a file format then why shouldn't he protect it and earn money for it?"
Because the 'net is filled with GIFS already, most people out there don't even know there's a patent on GIF files, and as such, they use the format, forcing others to obtain a licenced app to display them, or to be stuck with ilegal apps or the unability to display the file altogether. Software patents like these are a burden for smaller or open source OS & apps.
"> or C='s "right-click-menu" ?
It was a neat idea. Give the guy who thought of it some credit. OK, that example is a pretty good arguement for your side ;-)"
You SHOULD NOT be able to patent a UI.
">Yes such trivial ones do exists,
>and more are granted even today. And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.
But your argument that this should stop all patents is WRONG. Cars are involved every day in fatal Road Traffic Accidents as a result of driver error. So, using your argument, we should therefore ban all cars because a minority of drivers don't bother to follow the Highway Code (or whatever laws your particular country has)."
But car accidents don't have the risk of destroying a whole market, your analogy is bogus. Besides, had there been no "copying" (immitating would be a better word), the computing world as we know it would be completely different, after all Xerox would be the only one with a usuable GUI.
">I don't mind patents for real inventions, like someone coming up with REAL
>artificial intellegence, being protected for 3-5 years, but this patent-
>hogging only for the purpose to artificially protect the interest of big
>companies has the same effect as communism.
>It makes competion nearly impossible.
I agree with you that "patent hugging" is a bad thing, but that's no reason to deprive honest applicants of the protection it provides. What needs to be done is to educate the people who grant the patents about what the negative consequences could be."
Do you know what is involved in obtaining a patent & what the cost(s) are?
">As a side note, did it ever come to your mind that people don't really mind
>the copy-protection, but the STASI-like methods the distributors are useing to
> pursue those they think that might be doing something wrong =
Coded copy protection alone isn't enough. Code can be decompiled/reverse engineered and reused. The idea can be stolen and incorporated into a rival product without the rivals having to put any research into the idea or even spending time producing their own functioning code. Hacked software is just too easy to find."
Kronos was actually refurring to the way corporations persue their copy rights, and how they enforce it upon people, i have internet, i can download just about any cd or dvd i want, yet, i own over 300CD's & 100DVD's, because i buy what i like, now, had i been unable to play DVD's on linux, i would have bought none dvd whatsoever, i bought it, it should be my right to use & abuse my dvd's as i see fit, but the DCMA, for instance, makes playing DVD's on linux a crime, so technicly, i'm breaking the law (had i lived in the states)
"I could easily start a flame war here by suggesting a possible example of such "software", but I wont ;-)"
MorphOS, Lindows, AROS, linux.... the list is huge
">And you should also know that porting OS4 to OF-based mobos DOES NOT mean it
>can't use a dongle ? The piracy-claim is, was and allways will be void.
It's easier to by-pass a "dongle" than it is to adapt a whole OS to work on hardware it wasn't designed for. My "piracy claim" seems valid to me."
It's valid, but unrelated