i want to point out that yes, i think it "should be" but reality is that, it isnt.

but reality is that, anyone can take it ANYWAY. regardless of should be or laws or whatever. someone that wants it, will just take it, and copy it. and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
that's what im ultimately getting at, the laws, patent laws, suing, wont slow or stop any copying. the law is broken.

that is the definition of ego... oneself.

im not talking about ego boosting or cockiness.

im talking about the SELF.

thank god for urbandictionary, i think this is the best simple definition im trying to get at:

"their own" is "their ego".

the concept is hard to understand especially if your personality is introversion dominant.

to remove one's ego, is to remove ones SELF. COMPLETELY. as in remove your mind/body/soul from the equation (aka as if you were dead or non existent).

Google is a lightweight compared to Apple. There's no way they have the ability to "put Apple in its place".


It's been said that if the iPhone failed it might have ruined Apple. Certainly it would have severely impacted their company. They took the risk, spent a fortune in R&D and bet their company on a product in a market they never competed in before. The gamble paid off and they made a fortune. Risk - Reward.

What good is you licensing your patent to everyone? You think companies are going to jump at the chance to take a risk and bring your idea to market? Why don't you bring it to market yourself and prove its worth? If you bring it to market and it's successful, then people would want to license it, but by then nobody will have to because it's already "out there" (as you say).

You think it's OK for a company to sit back and watch someone else take all the risks and spend all the $$$ doing the hard work and then along and skim up the gravy for themselves without having to do any investment?

So Adobe spends millions of dollars developing Photoshop to be the best professional editor out there. They sell it for a higher price to reflect the amount of $$$ they spent developing it. Someone gets a copy and duplicates it to make it available online for anyone to use. Do you think that's OK?

^

its not okay for adobe, because they want money.

but its okay for everyone else.

but the fact is, its out there, and there's nothing they can do about it.

you cant ban sharing, you cant control it.

so... essentially... its here to stay right? it doesnt if its "right" or "wrong" (which is all based on perspective).


coding is just mathmatics, its like banning mathmatics, or not sharing math equations or formulas. doesnt that seem a bit ridiculous to you? more ridiculous than duplicating and sharing??

what im getting at is, it doesnt matter how i feel about it.

if one doesnt like it, they can fight it and fail
if one likes it, they'll download it and use it.

it doesnt matter how i FEEL about it, whether i FEEL its right or wrong.
its there.

it's like saying i feel rocks are wrong, well what you gonna do? destroy all rocks?
no man. its there. theres nothing you can do about it. you might as well live with it, and try to use it and leverage it. not fight the uphill impossible fight.

you cannot eliminate it. so join it or ignore it. or waste your energy fighting it.

thats what im getting at. how you feel about it has no impact on direction of how the future will unfold. its already out there.

im arguing from a very global and macro perspective, where time doesnt just span our lifetime or the past few years. time stretches infinite in both directions forward and back.
10 years from now, 50, 500, 1000, 10 000. it doesnt matter what time length im talking about.
im just a human that will live on this planet for 50-100+ years. the idea will exist after im long dead.


i can also come up with many other examples of how these laws dont work.

what if i get a copy of something for free in a duty free zone? mid flight between continents? what if im on the moon? or in space? what if im in a special zone where there are no laws?

is it still illegal? the boundary of the law is limited. whereas the boundary of sharing is unlimited.

apple's just jelly.

Ulic, quite trying to avoid the issue and answer the question.

Do you think a person getting a free version of a program like Photoshop (instead of paying for it) is doing anything wrong?

Do you think a person breaking into your car and stealing your car stereo is doing anything wrong?

ah my bad right now it just works in the gallery and camera app and you have to do it from the edge of the screen its new so not fully implemented and doubt it will be since they're ditching symbian but maybe (as there's still a major update or two left)

to pan around you slide as well but not from the edge

for webpages its still double-tap or reverse-pinch

couldnt find a release unit demo but here's a prototype example in the camera ui (he doesnt go from the edge in this)

I'm sure all those things you listed were once a "feature". To quote you:

Anyways, you obviously have blinders on so meh.

.....ummmmmmmmm:rukidding:

based on stats..sure...but innovation and everything else

id say they are on par...

:facepalm:

Really?? Did you just compare a standard feature like pinch to zoom, to stealing a fucking car stereo? :facepalm:

Ulic's point earlier about a steering wheel for a car, or handle bars for a bike, is so valid. 100 years from now, if we are still using touch screens, they will still be pinch to zoom.

Just like the first bicycle had handlebars, and they still do. People don't want to use anything else.

If someone wants to code a free photoshop that does exactly the same thing (like GIMP for example), then let them!

Unless Samsung physically used spies and stole the code line by line to implement it, why the hell shouldn't they be able to use pinch to zoom?

I think I'm just about done. There's no point in talking to an apple drone. It's worse than talking to Christians about evolution.

We just agree to disagree.

And I will probably get a Samsung phone as my next phone.

if the person NEEDS IT (aka they will pay for it if they cannot download it), then yes they are doing something wrong.

if the person is not going to buy it no matter what (therefore downloading it makes no difference), then no they didn't do anything wrong.

i would never buy photoshop, because i use it like twice a year to rotate and resize some pictures. if suddenly photoshop was not avaliable for free, i'd just download the next best thing, etc. until i was forced to use paint or something.

if i NEED (photoshop in particular) for some reason, and it wasn't available for free, i'd buy it.

yes, because he is actually costing me money. I have to pay to repair it no matter what.

and he will turn a profit on my stereo system no matter what. so one person loses instantly, and the other person gains.

where was in the photoshop question, no one loses (adobe wouldnt of recieved money regardless because the person would have never paid for the product anyway). and yes the person downloading it gains something, access to a tool that he was not going to pay for no matter what.




so now you have to answer my question:

1 - a person discovers the method the egyptians used to build pyramids, he keeps it all for himself (he can patent it but he doesnt want people to know the secret method). he builds a few things, and reveals them after they are complete. he doesn't tell anyone how he did it (ever, he takes it to his grave and the secret dies with him).

this method allows a single man to build things that would require power cranes and heavy machinery, but he can do it with simple tools (it would enable many people to do certain things much easily than before).
is he wrong?


2 - this person in an alternate world decides to share it, through patent licencing. after a few years, many structures are built using this method. in the near future, a pharaoh is cloned/ressurected (whatever). he has the knowledge of great secrets the Egyptians thought up.

he says he will not share any of the secrets with anyone! unless he gets royalties (from all the buildings that have been built using this method in the past) and full patent control of the pyramid method, and he doesn't want to licence it out. he claims he invented it thousands of years ago when he ordered the pyramids to be built and with his retained knowledge and our knowledge of which pharaoh ordered the pyramids to be built, we know this to be accurate. he did invent it. is he doing the right thing?





but remember we are arguing about whether or not people have to share the idea (through patent licencing). not whether or not you obtain it for free (free is a complete separate issue, if it can be taken for free, it will be regardless of right or wrong).

in my example, once the secret of the pyramid construction method is out to the public, does one have the right to withhold it and take it back from the collective knowledge of human beings and punish those who use it, just because someone else thought of it FIRST?

what if pinch and zoom was actually invented by some indian programmer 10 years ago on some experimental touch screen device? does he have the right to challenge apple and say that it is his idea and design?
he has physical evidence and eyewitnesses to back up the claim.

Is it me or does ulic always end up on the winning side of the argument at hand?


Genius

my point is, if the "world" stole your idea, and it was being used everywhere to do great/cool/fun things.

would scold and have negative thoughts every time you see your device being used? would you be grumpy till the day you die and hate the world forever?

or

would you one day, give a sigh, and say to yourself that, you did change the world. smile whenever you see someone use your invention (tons of people use your invention). and to let go of the fact that you didn't make any money out of it?

I don't understand how Arthur Chevrolet patented the Overhead Valve engine design yet Ford and Chrysler never had the pants sued off them for producing engines with pretty much identical designs.

Because Apple didn't make cars..

You can save the storage space in your HDD and uninstall photoshop.
Use this instead. Photo editor online / free image editing direct in your browser - Pixlr.com
Online photoshop clone...

Maybe cause he's a master debater :troll:

Google doesn't innovate. They buy other companies instead of coming up with their own ideas. Hell, even Android was bought by Google. As were many of Google's other "services". You can see the list here along with where they ended up within Google.

Can you name any Google innovations? Aside from their PageRank patent which runs their search engine.

Companies Google Has Bought


Can people read in this thread? I'm trying to see if Ulic thinks that digital content has value like physical property. Hence the questions about theft of software vs theft of physical property. But I guess that's over the heads of people here. :rolleyes:

Ulic already answered what I expected him to when he said this: if the person is not going to buy it no matter what (therefore downloading it makes no difference), then no they didn't do anything wrong. Basically he's saying it's OK to steal something. Just like all the thieves who download music, games, software, TV or movies.


Before the information age everything of value was physical. The value of something could be based on what it's made of (common materials vs gold), who made it (a craftsman vs a commoner) or the effort it took to make it (a piece of furniture made by a single person vs a building made by 100 people). If somebody took your property it was considered theft. It was an easy concept for people to understand - something belongs to you and another person took it away for themselves. It could be recovered and returned to you and the person caught with it would face consequences.

Today we have "assets" that aren't physical. A piece of software like Photoshop is valuable because it required a huge amount of resources to develop (a significant number of programmers working for a year or more).

The problem is people are still stuck in the past where they think only physical property can be stolen. There's nothing wrong with downloading because it's not physical. There's nothing wrong with downloading something you weren't going to buy anyway. It's not theft if it doesn't harm anyone. The list of excuses pirates use go on and on. Anything to justify theft.

Considering most people think it's OK to download it makes perfect sense they would disagree with the idea of patenting something you came up with. You can't own a digital asset so how could you own an idea?


Like arguing with Christians? Funny, I was about to use the same example for all the theives and anti-IP posters in this thread.

just a note
people who download "steal" also buy; this has already been found by quite a few studies. Hell downloading has also been associated with increased sales in certain sectors (like japanese television/animation/movies/av/games)

i've brought this up in other discussions on here over the last few years and provided the links to the articles (conducted by governments and top business schools and even the mpaa)

I know that, but they innovate the way things pop up in searches and shit. you cannot deny the importance of this.

regardless, why do you have such a hardon with this case.

I have an idea

you didn't answer my two questions though.

the answers to those questions are far heavier in importance than the statement "stealing is wrong"



i have another question.

define stealing.

then define how you would identify a piece of "property" as belonging to someone.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about psychology because, frankly, it's a topic that I'm not interested in, nor have any real desire to partake in. With that said, as you mentioned (as far as I can work it out), ego doesn't necessarily refer to one's self esteem or how others view yourself. If that's the case, then I'll agree to that. I'm sure there's another word for it, but seeing as it's past midnight and I'm already running on only two hours of sleep from the night before, it's not coming to me. However, if I wanted to keep an invention for myself, it's not because I want to dangle it over other people's heads or make people think more of me... and it definitely has nothing to do with greed (if you knew me, you'd know that money and power over other people are probably the two least important things in my life).

I currently use a Samsung phone (one of the "clones," a Captivate), and I've owned two iPhones in the past. I don't consider myself an Apple hater or an Android droid. Both companies and their respective OS's have their pros and cons. Personally I prefer Android because I can do more with it compared to iOS. I actually prefer open source programs like Linux, Ubuntu, Megasquirt, etc., over closed source because that means I have more control over what I'm working with. That doesn't mean I would have a problem with buying a closed source program if it does what I need it to do. However, I don't think it's right to simply open up a P2P program and take what I see fit.

As for the handlebar/bike bit, there were actually huge patent wars over designs in the 19th century. They were big enough that it actually forced most companies to shut down operations.

I don't believe there was ever any legal action for this infringement but car companies are constantly suing each other for patent issues. They just usually don't get the sort of headlines that Apple v. Samsung would get. Some how Paice v. Ford regarding a particular hybrid-related design infringement doesn't grab viewers attention. :p

Oh, I don't disagree that there are people who will go out and buy a CD or DVD for an artist or movie that they downloaded and enjoyed. But I'm sure there are stats out there that show that even though 1x of people who download music also buys the albums, there are 5x of people who don't.

I have friends who love certain bands and have downloaded that band's entire discography, but will never pay a cent to buy an album or see them in concert when they go on tour. Is that right? And sure, while making music can be someone's passion, it's also often their main source of income. Yes, one person's lack of payment may have cost an artist maaaaybe a total profit of $100, but if you times that by a few thousand people who also share the same opinion, then that starts to add up.

As many of you know, I used to work in the film industry many years ago. There was one show I worked on for a little bit that was a giant hit with the public; the problem, however, is that most of the people recorded the show to watch later instead of at the scheduled time slot. That meant that no advertisers would want to pay to promote their wares during the show, so the show was cancelled due to a lack of incoming funds. That put a lot of people out of a job. It's the same story for a lot of TV shows on basic cable. It could have the biggest following on the internet with millions of downloads from torrent sites every week, but because those sites also delete all the commercials before uploading them, there's no incentive to advertise. As a result, it's forcing companies to create product placements inside shows, and I freaking hate that. There's nothing worse than being immersed in a particularly good episode, only to have the two main characters suddenly and randomly talk about how "good" their new Kia is, what with the moving headlights, or how people are drinking out of Coke bottles with every single logo facing the camera.





You guys have to realize that Dangonay is older than most of us. His views and attitudes on certain topics are a direct result of a slightly different time than most of yours. It doesn't mean that his opinion is wrong.

i think google/ samsung has put apple in its place
Samsung Pays Apple $1 Billion Sending 30 Trucks Full of 5 Cents Coins - Paperblog