How to stop Piracy?

Huh? You last post looked like you agreed with me.

How have I contradicted myself?

Yes. I see you have gotten my point.

Under what you call "my system", because here I argue the case for elimination of IP law, any product "made available" is then "available".. rather than having a product be conditionally available subject to caveats of central government control.

No, I'm definitely not advocating any limit to freedoms to what we do. Quite the contrary, I'm arguing that there -shouldn't- be these limits on our freedoms. IP laws specifically limit what we can do with ideas.

You'd also stand a much better chance of getting rich if you owned slaves. Does that make it right?

Why not? Why shouldn't I be able to take care of myself and use my ideas to my advantage without relying on big brother to scare off would-be competitors?

?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how you could have made bundle on it without relying on protection from big brother.

No, that's the freedom -you- are boasting about. I'm suggesting here that these committees and individuals who are deciding IP law, deciding to distribute wealth (market share) should be disbanded.

[..]

It's entirely clear that the government controls the distribution of goods under IP law. I'm sure you can admit at least that much. That's the whole point! Only the patent holder is allowed to distribute the goods. The government tells me I can produce exactly 0 units of Happy Birthday CDs because there's a copyright on that is owned by WB.

To support such a system for its value of redistributing wealth in a manner you feel is more fair is one thing.. to claim such a system is free market capitalism is delusional.

I think so. Sorry for taking up your time with this utopian argument..

- shevek

Most software IS free. Though perhaps you could also say, most of it isn't very good.

I agree entirely! As you say, people will still buy Quake 5, etc, even if they need the dongles - the hard keys - the USB thimble. That -is- the future. Also, note that these techniques do not require IP protectionism by governments in any way.

By the time they are hacked, the next version will be coming out.

This has been the most drawn out argument I have ever seen. It seems that you can not tell the difference between the physical item (THE DVD) and the material on it. If EVERYONE has your mentality to copy the DVD and sell it with NO PROFIT going to the artist(s), then the artist(s) will not make money. From what I understand, the true artist(s) make a very small percentage PER ITEM SOLD. I know thats how it is with music CDs. Also, as far as music goes....things like Billboard are based on SALES. If you like and truly respect an artist, why not buy their product legitimately? That way at least they not only make their profit but also get the recognition they deserve. I am sure even YOU can understand that.

Depends on the type of software, that is true. But once some piece of software is free, it remains free.

It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features.

What I'm seeing is that the value is in the content here, as well as in the actual software.

Well, I tend to avoid software that needs license keys tied to hardware. What if the box breaks? I also hate hard limits. It is ok to pay by use, but I wouldn't want a botched up data load to bring the service down.

They are. But Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc are not going away. Unless someone greatly improves, there is no need to buy those 3 categories any more.

What wil happen instead is that software moves to a service level - like the on-line games that can only be played on-line. You just use an account and the freely available client.

It depends on the sector though: EDA software is probably specialized to be ever publicly available. OTOH products from failed companies to show up as free software. Look at

Once a commercial product, it is now free (and people use it for real work).

Thomas

On 9 May 2006 02:34:10 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Gave us:

Now, you are just being an idiot. You missed on both counts.

Your IQ drops ten points every time you post.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:14:44 +0200, Zak Gave us:

You don't get any points at all for semantical crap.

Something would not be regarded as a feature by a user if it wasn't a productivity tool.

You are obviously too young in this industry, or you wouldn't be making shit up as you go along, or missing the obvious, as you have in this case.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:14:44 +0200, Zak Gave us:

What box? Dongles have been around and in high NTBF for years... decades even. The newer styles are even MORE hardy.

I think you make shit up. Life is full of hard limits. Grow up, son (Foghorn Leghorn inflection).

You contradict yourself. If per use charges are OK, charging for the full function product on a disc is OK, and stealing it is STILL NOT OK.

You are in left field. The military passes secure data transmissions all the time... constantly. Nobody but the intended target gets the data, and nobody loses any data. They have very CPU intensive, very stringent authentication routines, and equipment. Us consumers can surely rely on a simple RFID/finger swipe system, and not cry about a fouled key. If you screw up your key, you can get another. Bet you take better care of the second one.

Won't be long, we will even have them in our bodies. You can nay say all you want, but I know what is actually going to happen.

In article , wrote: [....]

Ok tell me how I could have gotten rich from fixing the "slew rate problem" in instantaneous floating point converters, without being able to patent the idea behind it.

Lets get a specific case into this.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , Zak wrote: [....]

Actually neither seems really to be true. Lots of copies of Windows have been sold in spite of it being the best in neither area. Orcad is still being sold. Autocad still sells more than SolidEdge.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

I disagree with this. Lots of Fritterware gets sold on the basis of features that in truth lower productivity.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:04:03 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us:

Then... in truth... they are NOT features.

Thanks for your example Ken.

I must admit to ignorance in the nature of the slew rate problem, or even how a floating point conversion could be performed in zero time, but here are a few suggestions anyway:

1) It sounds like you have a detailed knowledge of design and manufacture of D/A converters. With that kind of knowledge, you could put a business plan together and approach investors - with a plan to build faster/better/cheaper converters and get a large portion of that lucrative market.

2) Another possibility is that you are a crucial member of a company that already builds D/A converters or electronic calculators of some sort. Chances are that if you are solving slew rate issues you are well compensated for your work - otherwise you'd flee to better offers from the competition.

3) A less likely possibility is that you are a hobbyist who has found time to explore floating point converters and found a way to buffer the input in such a way that the slew rate is not the limiting factor. Let's suppose also somehow you don't know much about manufacture, outsourcing, or business management so option 1 is off the table. In this case, you could approach a company with your idea (don't tell them everything until you're hired of course), or you could look for help in other educated parties in pursuing option 1.

4) Another option is placing your idea in the public domain, by e.g. publishing it in a IEEE journal or something. While you won't immediately profit from it, the boost in your reputation will greatly open your options in employment and increase the starting offers.

Good luck - shevek

Not at all. What made you say that? Do you agree there should be some discussion of what the laws should be?

Hi Graham, you can easily be excused for thinking that in todays day and age.. when some people even refer to government "no-bid" handout companies like Haliburton as *Capitalist*.

IFP converters are never "cheaper". They are very costly things.

What invester in his right mind would invest in the project when he knows that TI[1] would buy the first example and reverse engineer it and be on the market in under a year with the exact same product.

[1] Most likely TI but it could be someone else.

I'm going to call the "strike one" I don't see any way this will get me rich as a result of the IFP design.

No, I don't build ADCs (in general) I design them into stuff by the handfulls. I am well compensated but the IFP isn't getting me rich under this suggestion. It is my other work that is getting me rich. I'll call this "strike two"

On the day I tell them "everything" they no longer need me. Also they are not going to spend a lot on the IFP design if there is a competitor that will simply copy the design. Since this wasn't the actual case I won't call this "strike 3".

This one does get called "Strike 3". You said I would get rich. You haven't suggest any method that would work.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

Talk about "semantical crap".

Bleh. Plonk.

All too true. Features look good. OTOH change is frowned upon - no-one is going to believe people work much faster with a new OS of with new office software...

Thomas

I would invest in the project. One year of the market is quite a bit of profit, in the worst case scenario. Also, with your knowledge there's a good chance you can still make them better than the reverse engineered generic version from TI - not to mention the improvements you may have made by that point. Why do you assume TI will be able to make them better than you can?

I see there must be a subtle difference between "rich" and "well compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high enough, is it :)

Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves.

All three methods for which you gave me a strike could get you large amounts of money. Perhaps the only question is just how much. You're entirely right that by setting up a protected monopoly you will get richer.. so perhaps I have struck out if that was the goal.

Maybe I should also list a few non-free-market options:

5) Obtain a patent lawyer and set up a protected monopoly on your invention.

6) Write a proposal to develop your project further funded by taxpayer dollars

7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs.

Cheers - shevek