All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
MS exec rattles sabre, suggests Linux could infringe patents
voidmain:
Doc, I don't know if you have been keeping up with XP User but he has installed RedHat 8.0 and claims to like it. He's on the road to freedom. I don't know if I am hoping for too much here but I have a feeling he might soon be changing some tag lines and possibly user name.
Doctor V:
Yeah, I've noticed that he has made an about face. Infinitely better than before. But he still has a ways to go. He uses Redhat, but apparently still uses XP as well. I get sick to my stomach on every one of the rare occasions that I have to boot into Windows. But never XP, no good reason exists to ever use XP. So he's halfway there IMO. I'm hoping as well that he will change the tag lines and user name. I guess a change that extreme dosn't happen overnight, but gratz on your partial freedom # 993.
V
TB:
[sarcasm]Be careful Doctor V, XP User can sue you now! Or at least beat you over the head repeatedly. [/sarcasm]
It's about time IP laws got scrapped......or at least seriously reformed because nowadays they are just being perverted by corporations in their quest for greed. And quite frankly, the idea almost borders on the preposterous. Does it really matter who thought of or invented something first? It really doesnt to me. Sure, it might be historically important, but even history has made that screw-up before. Like with the electric light bulb........that sure as hell was NOT Edison's invention.
voidmain:
Who's invention was it? I know Edison was not the inventor of alternating current which many people incorrectly credit him with, that was Tesla, who actually worked for Edison for a while. But I am pretty sure Edison is credited with the invention of the incandescent light bulb (with help of course):
http://www.inventorsmuseum.com/LewisLatimer.htm
[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Doctor V:
People invent and create things for money. Its certainly not the only reason, nor is money necessary for inno.... argh, I just can't say the 'i' word anymore. People will certainly invent and create things even if copyright is not guarenteed, but copyright can serve as extra motivation. So I think copyright definitely has its good points. But a copyright holder should not need 90 years of exclusive rights to a work to reap the benifits. A few years would be enough. And exceptions should be made for partys that wish to build off of the copyrighted material. The purpose of copyright should not be to create billionairs. That is counterproductive as it destroys the motivation to in*ov*t*. A great inventor would focus on one invention rather than continuing to create new things. It also limits the ability of other parties to build off of what was created by another, thus hindering the progress of technology as a whole to socitey. It could even be the case that another party be developing the same item at the same time only to be forced to stop because of the issueing of a patent. With technology always being based on other technology, the only way to in*ov*te is to get rights to use previously created works, which requires money. Since the best technologies often are dependant on several other technologies, under this model, only very rich organizations can hope to in*ov*t* at all. This stifles competition, which harms customers.
The best way I can think of to describe the current copyright laws is to say that they are a maggot-infested pile of dogshit. They have been changed many times and tailored to best suit large rich and powerful incumbent corporations, and severely restrict and harm the both smaller smaller comannys and the public at large.
V
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version