ENIGMA Forums
General fluff => Off-Topic => Topic started by: justyellowboy on August 13, 2010, 10:48:41 pm
-
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/117301/scoracle-weaponizes-java
This is bullshit. I'm taking a programming class with Java and now I see that I can't even use the language, now, unless I want to join this piece of shit company, seeing as they can just patent whatever they want and then sue all the other companies.
This should be illegal. The company should be brought down.
-
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/08/oracles-java-lawsuit-undermines-its-open-source-credibility.ars
They can't sue you if you use the GPL version of a Java (OpenJDK) or a clean-room built fully compatible VM which Sun made a patent grant covering. Google has neither.
-
OpenOffice.org and VirtualBox were both completely built from the source on my computer, or at least, VB was. OpenOffice was built from source on someone else's computer, but built from source, nonetheless.
The GCC has a compatible Java compiler, and OpenJDK seems to work as a Java runtime. They can go fuck themselves.
-
Or we could make software patents illegal and keep using the JVM implementation that actually works.
-
Or we could just make patent laws better and not allow patent trolling on anything.
-
(http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item13919/Patent-Troll.jpg)
-
Or we could just make patent laws better and not allow patent trolling on anything.
Pretty much how I feel. This should've been squashed a long time ago.
I know what Retep's thinking, but realistically, the universities have just lost the ability to teach J2ME, quite possibly. I'm anxious that they'll get their hands on other things, next, like the actual language. No university will stick to teaching an outdated version of Java, regardless of whether it's GPL'd or not. It will side with what Oracle throws out, and my bets are off regarding their support for Free Software; few people take it as seriously as it should be.
Perhaps I'm spouting too much too early, but I'm worried as shit about what's going to happen to Java now that Oracle's so plainly announced what an evil company it's become. Its lawyers were ecstatic about being able to use patents against Google? What kind of business plan is that shit?! Since when did making money become all about suing and scaring other companies? How is this competition? How is it supposed to be positive economic activity that can shelter growth?
Now, reading that Ars Technica article, it's my guess that Oracle is going to end up forcing Google to GPLv3/GPLv2 the Dalvik VM, since OpenDJK is GPLv2'd and they could possibly upgrade by integrating it. I think it'd be a great way for Oracle to fail. Still, Google's a tad on its high horse claiming that Oracle's baseless, wouldn't you say? Even if they are, it's not up to either party to decide.
But yeah, MeeGo. :\
-
I never really liked Java, especially as a teaching language, so I'm not too worried about that. However, the JVM, Dalvik, and the ecosystem(s) around them are far too important to let Oracle patent-troll them out of usefulness, and patent trolling in general is too much of a problem to let it continue.
The USPO is horrid at recognizing prior art and at keeping track of what else they've given out patents for. Fixing that would go a long way, but fixing patent laws themselves (e.g. no patents on algorithms or other ideas that anyone could come up with independently) would be even better.
-
Java is a terrible language, especially for teaching. It teaches bad habits, such as instantiating classes for the sole purpose of performing functions.
Most of the stuff that is in Java can easily be done in other languages.
-
whoo! java haters unite... I tried learning it once... it was just to wierd.
-
Java is a terrible language, especially for teaching. It teaches bad habits, such as instantiating classes for the sole purpose of performing functions.
Most of the stuff that is in Java can easily be done in other languages.
Thank you for the irrelevant trolling.
-
Java is a terrible language, especially for teaching. It teaches bad habits, such as instantiating classes for the sole purpose of performing functions.
Most of the stuff that is in Java can easily be done in other languages.
Thank you for the irrelevant trolling.
(http://enigma-dev.org/forums/avatars/Other/troll2.jpg)
-
Java is a terrible language, especially for teaching. It teaches bad habits, such as instantiating classes for the sole purpose of performing functions.
Most of the stuff that is in Java can easily be done in other languages.
whoo! java haters unite... I tried learning it once... it was just to wierd.
Thank you for the irrelevant trolling.
It's trolls all the way down.
-
This _is_ a topic about trolling.
:troll:
-
XD
-
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.
-
tl;dr
:troll:
-
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.
-
It should switch to something else. not .net.
-
Why don't they just use C++?
-
I agree they should use C++, because C++ is perfect in every way.
-
I agree they should use C++, because C++ is perfect in every way.
:troll:
-
Yeah, thats coming from someone with "Troll wins" as their avatar...
-
Which means...?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
abolition of systems that have, however poorly, functioned for hundreds or thousands of years, is never a good idea
the pre-IP system functioned quite fine for a considerable length of time, until *only recently* did they decide to start fiddling in the market hoping to stimulate areas unnaturally and give in to people complaining about theft of things that we didn't even think could be stolen (imagine if someone went into court and complained about their neighbor stealing their air...).
I'm arguing against throwing everything out and going with a completely new and untested system.
Pre-IP is not untested.
-
Non-IP is untested in modern society; pre-IP did not have to deal with digital information.
In any case, all I'm saying is that abolishing patents and copyright all at once is both impossible and not likely to work well.
-
pre-IP is one in the same with Non-IP, and we did have pre-digital-IP, the state under which Microsoft was able to thrive (among other companies) until they finally decided to refocus their energies into instating IP and suing the crap out of Xerox for an icon that they stole from Xerox in the first place.
-
So... patents were invented after Microsoft? Wow, that company is older than I thought.
-
Microsoft and Xerox was a copyright case, not a patent one. As we get into the digital age, IP largely took hold in the form of Copyright, rarely did we see Patents except for in hardware, but hardware has been around for longer than hardware Patents as well.
These are technologies that the government could not anticipate, and thus did not have laws for. During the time that they were free of copyright restriction is the time we see the most innovation. Instability was also prevalent, not because it was unregulated, but because it was new. Regulations like copyright, if implemented too soon, would have completely crippled the digital age, and we'd be stuck with the least instable (although still very unstable) piece of crap that came about, and nobody could innovate off of it without paying them a pretty penny for the idea. Fortunately enough, it was implemented late enough that the digital market had stabilized somewhat reasonably and we ended up with Microsoft on top with their still-quite-buggy system. It was only several cases later which *released* some of the holds of IP that innovation, and competition, such as linux, Open Office, etc, started to continue the stabilization process and provide the needed competition to keep Microsoft in check.
Also, I've been kind enough to refrain from pointing out all the fallacies you've been making up to now.
-
Look, I may not have articulated this as well as I could have, but my point is not that we shouldn't abolish IP laws. I think that's a totally viable solution. My point is that change has to happen incrementally- the American revolution kept many of the same practices that were already in place or that had already been in use in other governments. They didn't jump straight to universal sovereignty, free the slaves and fix civil rights all at once, because it never could have worked- the country would have crumbled.
People and factions that work toward change will generally have radical ideals that motivate them. However, besides the fact that those ideals are generally impossible to achieve, at least right away, they may or may not be the best solution to the problem. Most ideas have some good and some bad aspects, and incremental change can take both sides into account. Working toward your ideals without trying to toss everything out at once is a lot more productive, which is why I brought up fixing IP laws. There are plenty of possible solutions to IP trolling and yours is only one of them.
-
A swindler is using a pyramid scheme to bring his patrons money. Eventually, the scheme starts running out of patrons, so patrons start losing money. Should we fix the scheme (probably by printing money to bail out the swindler) or abolish it?
An easily removed cancerous growth has started to sprout from your head and is impairing certain mental capacities as well as being quite aesthetically displeasing. Should we fix the problem by chopping off the visible part, or should we abolish the cancer?
An alcoholic is suffering from a hangover. Should we fix the problem by giving him a couple more beers, or should we abolish his alcohol consumption?
I agree that perhaps we can gradually wean ourselves of our IP addiction, but the point I want to get across is that in order for our society/economy to function most efficiently (e.g. to most efficiently improve the quality of life), it must be done without IP, which means that at some point we may have to go through a withdrawal. We may try to soften the blow by 'fixing' IP, but those solutions must be *temporary* steps towards the goal of IP, or else if we stay with the 'fix', we will be functioning inefficiently - creating market distortions, protecting shitty products from competition to improve them, and overall just not improving the quality of life.
-
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society, like IP laws.
While abolishing IP is a possible solution, it is not the only solution. The idea that an efficient economy precludes any kind of IP laws is entirely unproven. Your point of view is only one of many that have merit.
-
It is proven praxeologically (see Kinsella, see also Mises - Human Action (http://www.mises.org/books/humanaction.pdf). I can also briefly outline the reasoning for you if you haven't the time to read those), and there is much evidence to support it empirically (see Kinsella and references, see also Boldrin, Levine - Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf) and references (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal11refs.pdf)).
If anything is unproven, furthermore, unsound and empirically false, it is the idea that an efficient economy includes any kind of IP laws.
If there's any kind of untested system that I'd be afraid to try out, it would be your "fixed IP" system.
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society
lol, ok, you got me. Law enforcement, medical science, and addiction are not present in society.
-
Look, I'm not arguing IP laws. I'm sure you can look past my fallacious examples and bad writing to see what I'm talking about.
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society
lol, ok, you got me. Law enforcement, medical science, and addiction are not present in society.
XD I can't believe I said that. What I meant was more that they don't govern society, and in the case of law enforcement, it's merely enforcing the systems that are already there; changes they make are more short-term and (hopefully) don't change the way society is run. Hopefully that makes more sense.
-
I'm not sure that I follow. IP doesn't really govern society either. Whether I own a song or not, the only real difference is my quality of life. It may determine whether I listen to the song or not, and the tools I have at my disposal to efficiently go about my day. But something like law enforcement constantly restricts or encourages societal behavior. Something like medical science greatly influences our lives in determining whether we live or die, in what states of pain we are in, and the states of those we hold close to us. IP may take it toll in these respective fields, however, especially in the form of techonology. It is more of an auxiliary effect.
-
IP governs how companies and the economy run. Society was probably a bad choice of words, like the rest of that paragraph. I'm talking about changes to the how business, government and society run- stopping pyramid schemes, removing tumors and rehabilitating addicts are not that kind of change.
-
why don't we just remove ip laws bit by bit and see how stuff works as we remove it.
we don't do it also at once to avoid startling people like rusky but we don't take forever and piss of people like ism.
there, problem solved.
-
...that was my point, slightly oversimplified.
-
The funny thing is that it won't happen unless we miraculously gain a politician (or several) that is (are) not (a) lawyer(s).
Which won't happen.
-
Or we get either me or Ism as ruler of the world in which case a lot of people would celebrate while even more would run in fear and hide in their basements and bomb shelters expecting the worst to occur
-
You can't get me as ruler of the world. I wouldn't rule. My first act of power would be to dissolve the government and associated laws. My second act of power would be to step down.
-
@IsmAvatar IF the government and laws had been banned, then you stepping down would be meaningless.
-
Redundancy of dissolving broken systems never hurts. It's like running kill -1 followed by kill -9 on a process.
(http://enigma-dev.org/forums/Smileys/somethingawful/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
-
Yeah!
(http://www.tripsmarter.com/travelcommunity/attachments/destin-where-eat/3103d1201620292-cant-find-place-beatdeadhorse.jpg)
-
Fede-lasse stop goddamn reporting things that don't need to be
-
no