The end of copyright and patent is where we should be headed

[Beliathon]

You claim that any system will be better, which is how you excuse your lack of a better alternative.  Fortunately for the rest of us, history has countless examples of alternative systems which are vastly inferior.

I claim only that any system from past civilization will almost certainly be inferior, and any system from future civilization will very likely be (ethically and otherwise) superior. I claim that just as capitalism was born, so too must it die. Capitalism is not immortal, no human system ever was.

Wasn't that supposed to be the 20th century?  Marxism had more than enough chances.  It failed.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but modern post/anti-capitalist thought extends quite a bit beyond Marx.

Your ideas have been proven to result in plenty of starvation and death, but you are correct in mentioning the slavery, torture, and rape that are happening in North Korea thanks to people like you.

"Anticapitalist Bitcointalk forum posts made North Korea happen, guise!"  

I guess you'll be conveniently ignoring the fact that capitalist sex-slave trafficking is a 40 billion dollar per year global industry? Dat profit motive though.

That makes no sense.  At what point in history did humans have more food than they now have?

Not more food, but less people (higher infant mortality), and less waste.

At what point in history would a starving man willingly let another man take all his food, "for free"?

In the amazon basin, during food shortages elders were often known to "go for a walk in the forest", which is a euphemism for go out to die, so that the young may live.
This is in stark contrast to modern american life, where the old so often become the predators of the young. And if that isn't the definition of dystopia, I don't know what is.

What, this year?  I thought you were just whining about current circumstances.  Are you also blaming everything in history on our current system, retroactively?

You do realize that capitalism existed in the 18th century, correct? What, did you think piracy existed before capitalism? Good lord, you're beyond my help.

 Meanwhile, those of us who need food will continue either working or starving.

Ah, I see we've arrived at the part of the story where all capitalists are rewarded in exact proportion to how hard they work. The part where the wealthy elite all work 60+ hour work weeks just like the single mom with three kids.
The part where inheritance and spoiled rich kids don't exist. The part where you mentally sanitize capitalism of all its obvious fuedal roots. The part where the mythical "communism" still exists in 2015 in Russia and China, even though everyone knows those nations are hyper-capitalist in practice.

Just world fallacy is so absurd, it's amazing how it survives, even in the minds of people as socially-engineered as you.

[runpaint]

I guess you'll be conveniently ignoring the fact that capitalist sex-slave trafficking is a 40 billion dollar per year global industry? Dat profit motive though.

So you're fine with slavery and rape, as long as nobody makes any profits?

Not more food, but less people (higher infant mortality), and less waste.

Less waste, but more dead babies?  So throwing away a banana is waste, but a human being dying isn't waste. 

Thanks for clarifying your lack of value for human life.

In the amazon basin, during food shortages elders were often known to "go for a walk in the forest", which is a euphemism for go out to die, so that the young may live.
This is in stark contrast to modern american life, where the old so often becomes the predators of the young.

Okay, we get it!  You want people to die, babies and old people, and rich people, and anyone who is "extra".  You've made your point.

Ah, I see we've arrived at the part of the story where all capitalists are rewarded in exact proportion to how hard they work. The part where the wealthy elite all work 60+ hour work weeks just like the single mom with three kids.

Don't pretend to care about the single mom with three kids, you've already admitted that you want her kids to die.

[Soros Shorts]

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

[Beliathon]

So you're fine with slavery and rape, as long as nobody makes any profits?

Really? What a weak strawman. Looks like we're done here.

Since 2013 this forum attracts most "wanna-get-rich" piece of shit all over the world.

QFT, but it comes with the territory of money.

[(oYo)]

If we were to eliminate patent and copyright laws without moving on to something like a 'gift economy', rich and powerful entities would simply steal your ideas and flood the market with their own versions. I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior. Frankly, I don't believe people will ever become intelligent, vigilant and responsible enough or care for one another enough, to break free from this perpetual master/slave relationship with one another.

<Edit> Isn't this topic better suited in the Politics & Society section?

[Btcvilla]

I think they should be more loosen, suing someone because they are also a mouse is not a good idea...

Looking at you Disney...

[Beliathon]

I personally don't see this ever happening, since not only would people have to put aside their own petty and selfish desires, but they'd also have to destroy the formidable political and corporate power structures which supports such behavior.

Correct. This will happen.

[CIYAM]

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

It's very simple - you make a legal agreement with the fab manufacture called a "non-disclosure period" (I am not against those). If they break the agreement then you take them to court (and if you don't trust Chinese courts then just stop using Chinese manufacturing).

Coming to China did lead me to have to challenge my thinking as making money from copies is the model that the company I used to work for employed (and that just doesn't work in China).

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

[Beliathon]

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

A white westerner in China? Spoiler: you ARE the man.

[Quickseller]

How would you apply this idea to something closer to home ... something like a Bitcoin mining ASIC? Say you are the owner of a fabless ASIC design firm and you've just spent the last 2 years designing the most efficient 16nm SHA256 mining chip. You send the digital design to a fab for manufacture. Should the fab be able to sell copies of your design to a third party? Or worse, manufacture extra chips using your masks and dump them on the market?

It's very simple - you make a legal agreement with the fab manufacture called a "non-disclosure period" (I am not against those). If they break the agreement then you take them to court (and if you don't trust Chinese courts then just stop using Chinese manufacturing).

Coming to China did lead me to have to challenge my thinking as making money from copies is the model that the company I used to work for employed (and that just doesn't work in China).

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

[CIYAM]

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

That is what is often "claimed" but I've actually seen very little real evidence to back up said claims (but I've seen plenty of evidence to show that patents are being used to stifle innovation by companies that own them yet don't actual "use" them for anything except to prevent others from using a technology that they don't want to succeed).

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

[Beliathon]

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

Not just yet, at least. 2014-15 hasn't exactly been kind to them, though. I guess I wouldn't complain if my 103 year old company had a 150+ billion dollar marketcap, though.

[Quickseller]

Patents are a very important piece of business as they give business the protection they need for their investment in research and development of new technology and products.

That is what is often "claimed" but I've actually seen very little real evidence to back up said claims (but I've seen plenty of evidence to show that patents are being used to stifle innovation by companies that own them yet don't actual "use" them for anything except to prevent others from using a technology that they don't want to succeed).

I would agree that we need some kind of reform when it comes to patient laws. There is an excess amount of litigation regarding patients, and many patients are created just to litigate in the future (and patients are often purchased for the sole purpose of litigation).

With that being said however I think that companies do need protection for their investments they make when inventing something. Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

What would stop one of your customers from copying your design? The process would not be as easy as in Soros Shorts's hypothetical example, however someone could reverse engineer a design and dump it on the market.

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

I honestly cannot say I am familiar with PC clones. However I can say that one of the biggest costs that mining manufacturers have is R&D. If someone was able to skip the R&D phase of developing their miners then they would be able to sell their miners for significantly less then companies that did need to bear this expense.

[Beliathon]

Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

This concern only really matters when you're not pals with the people printing the money (or for those borrowing millions interest-free). When you have that kind of game-rigging happening in the heart of your system, the rules no longer apply.

Besides, if your big company fails because some little guy copied you and undercut your prices, you'll just get bailed out anyway! Or even if you don't get bailed out, we all know the executives will have their golden parachutes ready.

[Quickseller]

Why should you invest significant amounts of money to make some kind of invention when you could just wait for someone else to do the 'heavy lifting' for you.

This concern only really matters when you're not pals with the people printing the money (or for those borrowing millions interest-free). When you have that kind of game-rigging happening in the heart of your system, the rules no longer apply.

Most companies do not have the ability to access unlimited amounts of money. Most companies do not have the ability to borrow at near interest free rates.

The interest rates that companies in the US borrow at are set by the markets

[CIYAM]

Let's start by taking a look at "open source" software.

According to the general theory that companies need to protect their "intellectual property" (a term I despise) the open source movement should have died almost as soon as it started (being simply some sort of "hippy dream").

Yet it not only has flourished but made things like Bitcoin possible (there could be no such thing as Bitcoin without open source).

[Quickseller]

Let's start by taking a look at "open source" software.

According to the general theory that companies need to protect their "intellectual property" (a term I despise) the open source movement should have died almost as soon as it started.

Yet it not only has flourished but made things like Bitcoin possible (there could be no such thing as Bitcoin without open source).

I personally like open source software, and I personally tend to use open source software when I can. However there is often no open source version of what I want/need to use.

The main problem with open source software is that entities do not have the incentive to work on it nor to improve it on any kind of large scale.There are some projects that people contribute good money too because they are working towards a good cause (e.g. tor), however in the grand scheme of things there are very few open source software/projects out there with 'mainstream potential', the likely reason being the lack of commercial incentives for entities to invest in open source projects.

[2112]

Reverse engineering was how we got PC clones - but funnily enough IBM didn't go out of business did they?

IBM PC was not reverse engineered. IBM published very detailed technical reference manual that contained entire schematic of the circuitry as well as full assembly listing of the BIOS. The details of the IBM PC platforms (classic, Jr, XT, AT & PS/2) were never secret.

Please don't mix up reverse engineering with various clean-room design methodologies.

I will however believe that there were people who were paid to pretend to do reverse-engineering and probably some of them were even paid to swear to that under the penalty of perjury or create an "alternative construction" that served as a proof of reverse engineering.

[CIYAM]

I think you might need to look a bit harder.

Not only are there entire open source operating systems but every single kind of application you can think of.

[Quickseller]

I think you might need to look a bit harder.

Not only are there entire open source operating systems but every single kind of application you can think of.

When looking at these operating systems and applications through the eyes of someone who does not have a lot of technical skills, would you say that these applications have the same level of both features and UI as "traditional" (patented) applications have? Will they have the same level of security as necessary for people who have little/no experience in managing their security?