Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.
I am no enemy of Apple...never was...I just do not agree with their patent blitzkrieg. I do not see it as being anything but bad for the future of tech.
Like I say...Apple...a great friend to innovation, an enemy of progress. (which is easily debatable I know)
I've heard this argument before, that software patents are evil, and that copyright is sufficient. Regardless of what you call it, ideas should be somewhat protected if they are sufficiently unique, whether it's a patent or a copyright or a whatever.
We accept this in other mediums. In literature, for instance, it's not okay to wholesale steal ideas without permission, even if the words, sentence structure, names, etc. are different.
I can't write a book today about a kid growing up in a village on an alien world who fights against an evil government and battles his father using a mystical power, can I?
I can't write a play about concert hall, where a disfigured woman haunts the musicians and falls into an obsessive love with a young violinist and battles his childhood sweetheart for his affections, right?
If you subscribe to the notion that only code itself should be protected, then by the same token only specific sentences, words, paragraphs, character names, etc. should be the only things protected, and I can write a knockoff of Star Wars or Phantom of the Opera, as long as I change some things up. Would that benefit literature? You might argue that it wouldn't hurt, but I'd say this: what truly drives ANY industry in a capitalistic society is money; why would I spend time writing a piece of literature if someone can simply change some things around and essentially release the same thing, depriving me of potential money I could have made? The motivation behind progress would be hampered.
I understand the logic of believing that the world would be better if information would be shared freely; communism sounds great on paper, too. Trouble is, the world is not motivated by love; on the contrary, humans are base creatures who are motivated by greed and lust, and thinking otherwise involves a utopian vision that won't succeed unless humans are changed at their core. From my position, companies like Google abuse the idealistic open source community by praising its virtues and garnering its respect with one hand while raking in profits with the other. They don't care about idealism or a world where information is shared freely; they care about making money plain and simple. At least Apple is more upfront about it.