Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: ORACLE begins patent-trolling with Java.  (Read 6711 times)
Offline (Male) retep998
Reply #15 Posted on: August 15, 2010, 09:41:07 PM

Member
Location: Where else?
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 248
MSN Messenger - retep998@charter.net AOL Instant Messenger - retep998 Yahoo Instant Messenger - retep998
View Profile Email
Suing is when a company asks to government to punish another company because they didn't like what they did even though the action wasn't illegal.
As you can see, because of this role the government plays, a business is able to win by merely getting a good lawyer team and having connections.
Take the government out of the question and its all up to competition where businesses have to improve their products and satisfy customers, or they shall perish.
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #16 Posted on: August 15, 2010, 11:35:54 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Ohio, United States
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2953

View Profile Email
tl;dr
:troll:
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Unknown gender) luiscubal
Reply #17 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 04:06:30 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 452

View Profile Email
In first place, Java doesn't encourage initializing classes *just* to use functions. That's what static functions are for.
And maybe Android should switch to .NET. Microsoft's community promise is safer than Oracle's vague patent protection.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) freezway
Reply #18 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 05:40:43 PM

Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 220

View Profile
It should switch to something else. not .net.
Logged
if you drop a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back, which side lands down?
joshdreamland: our languages are based on the idea that it's going to end up FUBAR
/kick retep998
Offline (Male) retep998
Reply #19 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 07:04:45 PM

Member
Location: Where else?
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 248
MSN Messenger - retep998@charter.net AOL Instant Messenger - retep998 Yahoo Instant Messenger - retep998
View Profile Email
Why don't they just use C++?
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #20 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 07:12:13 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Ohio, United States
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2953

View Profile Email
I agree they should use C++, because C++ is perfect in every way.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #21 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 09:06:48 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
I agree they should use C++, because C++ is perfect in every way.
:troll:
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) freezway
Reply #22 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 09:41:15 PM

Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 220

View Profile
Yeah, thats coming from someone with "Troll wins" as their avatar...
Logged
if you drop a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back, which side lands down?
joshdreamland: our languages are based on the idea that it's going to end up FUBAR
/kick retep998
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #23 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 10:07:31 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Which means...?
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #24 Posted on: August 16, 2010, 10:23:17 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
Quote
fixing patent laws themselves (e.g. no patents on algorithms or other ideas that anyone could come up with independently) would be even better.
Or we could just eliminate copyright/patent laws altogether, since they don't do what they're supposed to (reward and thus encourage creativity), usually doing quite the opposite, and here we see a perfect example of that, where a company is spending capital to hire lawyers and fine the crap out of another company when they could just be using that capital to improve Java, which they've all but decided not to do (remember when they dropped all those developers and then postponed Java 7's release indefinitely?).

For a philosophical and in-depth analysis for the reasons to get rid of copyright/patent/intellectual property, along with dismantling all the arguments I've ever heard (and some I haven't heard) for IP, Stephan Kinsella has an excellent paper, Against Intellectual Property, http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #25 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 10:12:17 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
I'm not convinced that copyright is never a good thing. These cases where patents cause problems are very high-visibility, but nobody really talks about cases where they're a good thing.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #26 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 11:55:29 AM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
It's called a broken window fallacy. Even if we did see positive effects, we aren't seeing the positive effects that could have been had were it not for copyright.

Suppose that we drop a bomb on your house when nobody's home. This is obviously a good thing because it spurs economic activity - you have to buy a new house, which stimulates the housing market, which in turn stimulates other markets as the workers there buy new things with their newfound money. As you can see, dropping bombs on houses is a very good thing, just as copyrights are a very good thing.

Broken Window Fallacy.

Besides, even if we did try to "fix" IP, as explained in the article I linked, there's no evidence to support the idea that it would be positive at all, and plenty to support that it would be negative, not to mention philosophically inconsistent/unsound.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 12:00:46 PM by IsmAvatar » Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #27 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 12:30:38 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Copyright is not facilitating ridiculous litigation wars, whereas patents are. My original point was that we should at least change the patent laws. If abolishing patents is the way to fix IP, great. However, There is no evidence to support the idea that abolishing copyright would be positive or negative, nor is there evidence that changing IP laws would be positive or negative. There is only speculation.

No matter which is the best solution in the end, extremist abolition of systems that have, however poorly, functioned for hundreds or thousands of years, is never a good idea. There is always another point of view, and there are always more effective compromises than abruptly throwing everything out for the benefit of an untested system.
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #28 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 12:37:29 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Ohio, United States
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2953

View Profile Email
If the founders of our country thought like you just did, we'd be sipping expensive tea right now instead of arguing about changing systems being an undue risk.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #29 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 01:07:04 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
I'm definitely not arguing against change. I'm arguing against throwing everything out and going with a completely new and untested system. The ideas behind our country had already been tried out in some form or another all over spacetime.

Furthermore, the colonists did try to negotiate with the British government before revolting, and their first attempt at a new system - the Articles of Confederation - failed miserably, forcing them to move back toward a more centralized government, which wasn't all that different from what they had before.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print