Copyright can be, in a few instances such as commercial piracy operations, but patents never ever are. Have you read the copyright portion of this suit? The strong part isn't significant and the significant part isn't strong.
I seriously doubt that Google will get a felony conviction for the 750 lines of code that they actually did copy, though they should certainly have to pay damages for them. The api prototypes will almost certainly be found not to be an issue, there's tons of precedent there - Oracle itself would be infringing Microsofts copyright on spreadsheet functions if that was the case.
Let's not forget how Google ignored copyrights by publishing books for which they had no rights (a couple of them were mine for which I own the copyrights):
No they do not, the Shostakovich suit wasn't decided in soviet russia, it was in the good ole US of A. Sorry but you're in complete error regarding the law here. The copyright holder may or may not have absolute rights to control distribution of derived works, all that is certain is that they will have a right to royalties.
I didn't say the suit was in the USSR. I'm familiar with it. The copyrights were in dispute.
Quote:
Irrelevant. Google was never claiming absolute rights over these books, it was claiming fair use rights to archive and distribute small excerpts except where copyright was demonstrably ended.
Again, to you. But Google was claiming much more than that. They were claiming absolute rights. It was only after intense negotiation that they changed some of the terms, and they are still wrapped up in court over this.
When a derivative work of a copyrighted item is created, the copyright remains with the holder of the original copyright. If a new copyright is granted, only the new, derivative changes to the work are copyrighted in the new copyright. The original work and copyright still belong to the holder of original copyright.
No one can slighty change a work and claim copyright over the entire work. Doing so is copyright infringement. If it were not, by law, infringement and one could freely modify and change other's works and the copyright them in one's own name, then we would not even be having this discussion -- the concept of infringement would not exist. Nor would copyrights.
You're arguing against a position I'm not taking. Let me make it more clear
Person A writes a book and owns the copyright on the book.
Person B scans the book and owns a derived copyright on the scan documents.
Person B's copyright doesn't allow him to distribute his scans fully without respect to Person A's copyright. Consent from person A isn't sufficient to allow person C the right to copy person B's files. The question as to whether person B was legally entitled to take the scan is a different one entirely. Should person A's copyright lapse, person B's copyright may still remain.
Quote:
An old master can not be copyrighted. It is public domain. If it is re-published in a book, the book is copyrighted and the reproduction of the old master can be copyrighted. But, the old master itself is still public domain.
In the case of the old master, yes the original is public domain, but since the museum who owns it won't let you scan it yourself you'll never have a public domain digital representation because of the copyright on the derived scan. The scan is itself a reproduction, and has a derived copyright.
I didn't say the suit was in the USSR. I'm familiar with it. The copyrights were in dispute.
Ok, but you appear to be asserting that a composer or songwriter in the US can refuse the right to cover a piece of music, and I can find no evidence of such law. In the EU that may be possible, but not as far as I'm aware in the US. If you're not asserting that then I have no idea what it is you're saying.
Copyright can be, in a few instances such as commercial piracy operations, but patents never ever are. Have you read the copyright portion of this suit? The strong part isn't significant and the significant part isn't strong.
I seriously doubt that Google will get a felony conviction for the 750 lines of code that they actually did copy, though they should certainly have to pay damages for them. The api prototypes will almost certainly be found not to be an issue, there's tons of precedent there - Oracle itself would be infringing Microsofts copyright on spreadsheet functions if that was the case.
Well, we're discussing both copyrights and patents. The concept is that even if the original material still exists in the copyright holders possession, the copies made from it are stolen, and subject to criminal law if done for commercial purposes, under the proper circumstances.
While patent theft isn't subject to criminal law, the concept remains the same. Copying the patent in another work, is still theft. The legal distinction between the two doesn't lessen the moral equivalence. I suppose it does to you, but not to most people.
A lot of law hasn't caught up to what is property in modern terms. It might someday, but that doesn't change the morality of an action.
Well, we're discussing both copyrights and patents. The concept is that even if the original material still exists in the copyright holders possession, the copies made from it are stolen, and subject to criminal law if done for commercial purposes, under the proper circumstances.
While patent theft isn't subject to criminal law, the concept remains the same. Copying the patent in another work, is still theft. The legal distinction between the two doesn't lessen the moral equivalence. I suppose it does to you, but not to most people.
A lot of law hasn't caught up to what is property in modern terms. It might someday, but that doesn't change the morality of an action.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
Ok, but you appear to be asserting that a composer or songwriter in the US can refuse the right to cover a piece of music, and I can find no evidence of such law. In the EU that may be possible, but not as far as I'm aware in the US. If you're not asserting that then I have no idea what it is you're saying.
I don't know why "cover" songs are being brought up here. They are still subject to copyright.
I think it is a basic misunderstanding of how this works. If you are doing a secondary recording, you still need to get a license to do it, either from the songwriter(s), or from the agency that handles the copyrights. There is no free ride.
It's an attempt to brand something theft. It would be like me accusing you of committing a violent assault on logic.
It's a standard way of describing it.
The difference you are having with most people here, because it's not just me, is that you are hiding behind the legal systems' definitions, while we are, you might say, hiding behind the cultural definition of theft.
To us, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.
To you, taking something that isn't yours isn't theft if it's civil rather than criminal.
I think that most of us prefer the general, cultural understanding of what theft means.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
That's your typical lack of understanding what someone is saying, or a usual deliberate attempt at convoluting several separate things as though they are one.
You should know very well what I mean. I'm assuming you know you've lost the argument, so you're resorting to nonsense to get things off track.
The difference you are having with most people here, because it's not just me, is that you are hiding behind the legal systems' definitions, while we are, you might say, hiding behind the cultural definition of theft.
I'm not hiding behind anything- I'm defending the existing meanings of words whereas you are attempting to redefine them to suit your convenience. If you want to start a movement to have patent infringement made into a felony called patent theft go right ahead, but just be prepared to have EVERY firm in the IT business, even Apple, oppose you.
Until such time as there is a crime of patent theft, we should all accept that infringement isn't the same thing for damned good reasons.
Quote:
To us, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.
To you, taking something that isn't yours isn't theft if it's civil rather than criminal.
I think that most of us prefer the general, cultural understanding of what theft means.
Right, the 'everybody knows' argument. Do I really need to tell you how stupid that is?
If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee, especially if the patent turns out to be invalid. If the patent does turn out to be invalid then presumably by your 'logic' the assignee has committed fraud? Or perhaps racketeering?
Everybody knows that if I demand money for something I have no right to then it's either fraud or racketeering right?
That's your typical lack of understanding what someone is saying, or a usual deliberate attempt at convoluting several separate things as though they are one.
You should know very well what I mean. I'm assuming you know you've lost the argument, so you're resorting to nonsense to get things off track.
No - I'm attempting to demonstrate to you how profoundly stupid your argument is, by asserting something equally stupid in the hope that it might get through. I'm not sanguine of the chances, but I keep trying.
As for convoluting things, you're the one who dragged copyright into the patent discussion in order to bolster the claim that it's theft, before switching to a claim of cultural equivalence. Because that's not muddying the waters at all right?
I don't know why "cover" songs are being brought up here. They are still subject to copyright.
I think it is a basic misunderstanding of how this works. If you are doing a secondary recording, you still need to get a license to do it, either from the songwriter(s), or from the agency that handles the copyrights. There is no free ride.
You have to pay, you don't have to get permission - different things. And you can record the cover without even paying, you just can't distribute. The point is that Google didn't necessarily need consent to scan the books, because the law there is as yet unclear. It may fall under fair use.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
You may be correct on a technical detail, but, IMO, you are completely off base.
Stealing is Stealing -- Shit is Shit -- it is as clear as that!
Knowing that what your are doing is covered by another's patent then willfully proceeding is logically, morally and ethically indefensible -- except to those lacking these character traits.
Call it what you will, but it is civilly dishonest and reprehensible behavior -- what many people would call theft.
I think the judge said it best when he warned Google that a lawyer with the email and the Magna Carta could bring them down.
I for one, would like to see the Google management involved put on the stand to publicly explain:
1) what they did and why
2) what advantages did this give Google
3) to what disadvantage did this place Oracle and others including competitors and Android licensees
4) what are fair damages -- including treble damages
5) why Google should not be enjoined from further distribution of Android
These would be some very interesting revelations -- and would help clear the waters in which we all swim
Wait, Google is trying to SUPPRESS information? I thought they were all about open. OPEN! Open always wins! Remember that, Google? What, was that just a saying fabricated to dupe open source zealots?
It's amusing when people go, "Google still isn't evil. Milosevic is evil. Google hasn't committed genocide; therefore, they are not evil." If Milosevic and other brutal dictators are where the line to evil begins, then even Lodsys consists of saints.
I'm not hiding behind anything- I'm defending the existing meanings of words whereas you are attempting to redefine them to suit your convenience. If you want to start a movement to have patent infringement made into a felony called patent theft go right ahead, but just be prepared to have EVERY firm in the IT business, even Apple, oppose you.
Until such time as there is a crime of patent theft, we should all accept that infringement isn't the same thing for damned good reasons.
It seems that as long as it doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior, you don't think of it as being wrong. If it weren't wrong, the courts wouldn't address the issue. The reason it isn't criminal is because of expediency. If executives were thrown into prison every time some license was violated, there wouldn't be any executives left to run the company.
In addition, executives are protected against this because a company is treated, legally, as an entity, with certain rights. You can't throw a corporation into the pokey, but you can do the next best thing, which is to make them pay up big.
Quote:
Right, the 'everybody knows' argument. Do I really need to tell you how stupid that is?
If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee, especially if the patent turns out to be invalid. If the patent does turn out to be invalid then presumably by your 'logic' the assignee has committed fraud? Or perhaps racketeering?
Everybody knows that if I demand money for something I have no right to then it's either fraud or racketeering right?
The everybody knows, or the "I know it when I see it" arguments are a legal framework that even Supreme Court justices use. It was used in the question of what pornography is, famously.
If a patent turns out to be invalid, then, obviously, you aren't taking anything, and so it isn't a part of this discussion at all.
But if it is valid, then it just as obviously is valuable. That you fail to recognize that is amazing! Why have patents in the first place if they aren't of value? The very fact of their existence proves your argument that you aren't taking anything of value to be false.
Stealing is Stealing -- Shit is Shit -- it is as clear as that!
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
No - I'm attempting to demonstrate to you how profoundly stupid your argument is, by asserting something equally stupid in the hope that it might get through. I'm not sanguine of the chances, but I keep trying.
As for convoluting things, you're the one who dragged copyright into the patent discussion in order to bolster the claim that it's theft, before switching to a claim of cultural equivalence. Because that's not muddying the waters at all right?
My arguments make perfect sense. It's yours that are lacking. Others brought copyright into this before me. You mentioned this as well. When Google book scanning was first brought up, an argument you joyfully joined, that was well before my post.
It seems that as long as it doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior, you don't think of it as being wrong. If it weren't wrong, the courts wouldn't address the issue. The reason it isn't criminal is because of expediency. If executives were thrown into prison every time some license was violated, there wouldn't be any executives left to run the company.
In addition, executives are protected against this because a company is treated, legally, as an entity, with certain rights. You can't throw a corporation into the pokey, but you can do the next best thing, which is to make them pay up big.
I've never said that. I think it's wrong to attack people based on ad hominems for example, though that's not illegal. I don't think that patent infringement is necessarily wrong because I think so many patents are terrible, but it is illegal, it's just not criminal.
As to not being able to throw a company into the pokey, that's true but a felony conviction against a company can frequently destroy it. Arthur Anderson was one example. News Corp may be facing a similar fate if it turns out that the News of the World hacked any US voicemail.
I'm attempting to keep a level of rationality in this discussion which seems otherwise to be lacking.
Quote:
The everybody knows, or the "I know it when I see it" arguments are a legal framework that even Supreme Court justices use. It was used in the question of what pornography is, famously.
Yes so by that argument patent infringement is legally theft because everybody knows theft when they see it? Wait, patent infringement isn't theft, which means that the court thinks that not everybody would think it is.
You just sunk your own battleship.
Quote:
If a patent turns out to be invalid, then, obviously, you aren't taking anything, and so it isn't a part of this discussion at all.
Except a priori you can't know whether it's valid or not. Which is why infringement isn't morally equivalent to theft, because generally you don't even know if you did infringe a real patent until after the end of the legal fight. Google is certainly wilfully infringing Oracle's patents, but it almost certainly has some plausible case for claiming that they aren't or shouldn't be valid.
Quote:
But if it is valid, then it just as obviously is valuable. That you fail to recognize that is amazing! Why have patents in the first place if they aren't of value? The very fact of their existence proves your argument that you aren't taking anything of value to be false.
When did I ever say that valid patents weren't valuable? Never. Why don't you stick with disagreeing with what I say rather than disagreeing with straw men that you claim I believe? Is it just too hard?
Comments
Copyright theft can be criminal as well. I have the law for the USA, but it's similar in many other jurisdictions.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Copyright can be, in a few instances such as commercial piracy operations, but patents never ever are. Have you read the copyright portion of this suit? The strong part isn't significant and the significant part isn't strong.
I seriously doubt that Google will get a felony conviction for the 750 lines of code that they actually did copy, though they should certainly have to pay damages for them. The api prototypes will almost certainly be found not to be an issue, there's tons of precedent there - Oracle itself would be infringing Microsofts copyright on spreadsheet functions if that was the case.
Let's not forget how Google ignored copyrights by publishing books for which they had no rights (a couple of them were mine for which I own the copyrights):
Goggle settles Copyright Case.
Copyright and patent infringement seem to be part of Google's standard business practices.
Steve Kochan
People are awfully focused on the current issue but Google has a long history of theft. It is good that you remind people of this.
No they do not, the Shostakovich suit wasn't decided in soviet russia, it was in the good ole US of A. Sorry but you're in complete error regarding the law here. The copyright holder may or may not have absolute rights to control distribution of derived works, all that is certain is that they will have a right to royalties.
I didn't say the suit was in the USSR. I'm familiar with it. The copyrights were in dispute.
Irrelevant. Google was never claiming absolute rights over these books, it was claiming fair use rights to archive and distribute small excerpts except where copyright was demonstrably ended.
Again, to you. But Google was claiming much more than that. They were claiming absolute rights. It was only after intense negotiation that they changed some of the terms, and they are still wrapped up in court over this.
When a derivative work of a copyrighted item is created, the copyright remains with the holder of the original copyright. If a new copyright is granted, only the new, derivative changes to the work are copyrighted in the new copyright. The original work and copyright still belong to the holder of original copyright.
No one can slighty change a work and claim copyright over the entire work. Doing so is copyright infringement. If it were not, by law, infringement and one could freely modify and change other's works and the copyright them in one's own name, then we would not even be having this discussion -- the concept of infringement would not exist. Nor would copyrights.
You're arguing against a position I'm not taking. Let me make it more clear
Person A writes a book and owns the copyright on the book.
Person B scans the book and owns a derived copyright on the scan documents.
Person B's copyright doesn't allow him to distribute his scans fully without respect to Person A's copyright. Consent from person A isn't sufficient to allow person C the right to copy person B's files. The question as to whether person B was legally entitled to take the scan is a different one entirely. Should person A's copyright lapse, person B's copyright may still remain.
An old master can not be copyrighted. It is public domain. If it is re-published in a book, the book is copyrighted and the reproduction of the old master can be copyrighted. But, the old master itself is still public domain.
In the case of the old master, yes the original is public domain, but since the museum who owns it won't let you scan it yourself you'll never have a public domain digital representation because of the copyright on the derived scan. The scan is itself a reproduction, and has a derived copyright.
I didn't say the suit was in the USSR. I'm familiar with it. The copyrights were in dispute.
Ok, but you appear to be asserting that a composer or songwriter in the US can refuse the right to cover a piece of music, and I can find no evidence of such law. In the EU that may be possible, but not as far as I'm aware in the US. If you're not asserting that then I have no idea what it is you're saying.
Copyright can be, in a few instances such as commercial piracy operations, but patents never ever are. Have you read the copyright portion of this suit? The strong part isn't significant and the significant part isn't strong.
I seriously doubt that Google will get a felony conviction for the 750 lines of code that they actually did copy, though they should certainly have to pay damages for them. The api prototypes will almost certainly be found not to be an issue, there's tons of precedent there - Oracle itself would be infringing Microsofts copyright on spreadsheet functions if that was the case.
Well, we're discussing both copyrights and patents. The concept is that even if the original material still exists in the copyright holders possession, the copies made from it are stolen, and subject to criminal law if done for commercial purposes, under the proper circumstances.
While patent theft isn't subject to criminal law, the concept remains the same. Copying the patent in another work, is still theft. The legal distinction between the two doesn't lessen the moral equivalence. I suppose it does to you, but not to most people.
A lot of law hasn't caught up to what is property in modern terms. It might someday, but that doesn't change the morality of an action.
To you.
In actuality, the idea of patent theft is an established one, even though it's not liable to imprisonment.
This is one recent article, and there are dozens, maybe hundreds more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-ch..._b_508780.html
It's an attempt to brand something theft. It would be like me accusing you of committing a violent assault on logic.
Well, we're discussing both copyrights and patents. The concept is that even if the original material still exists in the copyright holders possession, the copies made from it are stolen, and subject to criminal law if done for commercial purposes, under the proper circumstances.
While patent theft isn't subject to criminal law, the concept remains the same. Copying the patent in another work, is still theft. The legal distinction between the two doesn't lessen the moral equivalence. I suppose it does to you, but not to most people.
A lot of law hasn't caught up to what is property in modern terms. It might someday, but that doesn't change the morality of an action.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
Ok, but you appear to be asserting that a composer or songwriter in the US can refuse the right to cover a piece of music, and I can find no evidence of such law. In the EU that may be possible, but not as far as I'm aware in the US. If you're not asserting that then I have no idea what it is you're saying.
I don't know why "cover" songs are being brought up here. They are still subject to copyright.
I think it is a basic misunderstanding of how this works. If you are doing a secondary recording, you still need to get a license to do it, either from the songwriter(s), or from the agency that handles the copyrights. There is no free ride.
It's an attempt to brand something theft. It would be like me accusing you of committing a violent assault on logic.
It's a standard way of describing it.
The difference you are having with most people here, because it's not just me, is that you are hiding behind the legal systems' definitions, while we are, you might say, hiding behind the cultural definition of theft.
To us, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.
To you, taking something that isn't yours isn't theft if it's civil rather than criminal.
I think that most of us prefer the general, cultural understanding of what theft means.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
That's your typical lack of understanding what someone is saying, or a usual deliberate attempt at convoluting several separate things as though they are one.
You should know very well what I mean. I'm assuming you know you've lost the argument, so you're resorting to nonsense to get things off track.
It's a standard way of describing it.
The difference you are having with most people here, because it's not just me, is that you are hiding behind the legal systems' definitions, while we are, you might say, hiding behind the cultural definition of theft.
I'm not hiding behind anything- I'm defending the existing meanings of words whereas you are attempting to redefine them to suit your convenience. If you want to start a movement to have patent infringement made into a felony called patent theft go right ahead, but just be prepared to have EVERY firm in the IT business, even Apple, oppose you.
Until such time as there is a crime of patent theft, we should all accept that infringement isn't the same thing for damned good reasons.
To us, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.
To you, taking something that isn't yours isn't theft if it's civil rather than criminal.
I think that most of us prefer the general, cultural understanding of what theft means.
Right, the 'everybody knows' argument. Do I really need to tell you how stupid that is?
If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee, especially if the patent turns out to be invalid. If the patent does turn out to be invalid then presumably by your 'logic' the assignee has committed fraud? Or perhaps racketeering?
Everybody knows that if I demand money for something I have no right to then it's either fraud or racketeering right?
That's your typical lack of understanding what someone is saying, or a usual deliberate attempt at convoluting several separate things as though they are one.
You should know very well what I mean. I'm assuming you know you've lost the argument, so you're resorting to nonsense to get things off track.
No - I'm attempting to demonstrate to you how profoundly stupid your argument is, by asserting something equally stupid in the hope that it might get through. I'm not sanguine of the chances, but I keep trying.
As for convoluting things, you're the one who dragged copyright into the patent discussion in order to bolster the claim that it's theft, before switching to a claim of cultural equivalence. Because that's not muddying the waters at all right?
I don't know why "cover" songs are being brought up here. They are still subject to copyright.
I think it is a basic misunderstanding of how this works. If you are doing a secondary recording, you still need to get a license to do it, either from the songwriter(s), or from the agency that handles the copyrights. There is no free ride.
You have to pay, you don't have to get permission - different things. And you can record the cover without even paying, you just can't distribute. The point is that Google didn't necessarily need consent to scan the books, because the law there is as yet unclear. It may fall under fair use.
So basically you're saying that although theft is a criminal act and although patent infringement isn't a criminal act, that patent infringement is still theft because it seems like it to you?
Wow, maybe you really are violently assaulting logic after all.
You may be correct on a technical detail, but, IMO, you are completely off base.
Stealing is Stealing -- Shit is Shit -- it is as clear as that!
Knowing that what your are doing is covered by another's patent then willfully proceeding is logically, morally and ethically indefensible -- except to those lacking these character traits.
Call it what you will, but it is civilly dishonest and reprehensible behavior -- what many people would call theft.
I think the judge said it best when he warned Google that a lawyer with the email and the Magna Carta could bring them down.
I for one, would like to see the Google management involved put on the stand to publicly explain:
1) what they did and why
2) what advantages did this give Google
3) to what disadvantage did this place Oracle and others including competitors and Android licensees
4) what are fair damages -- including treble damages
5) why Google should not be enjoined from further distribution of Android
These would be some very interesting revelations -- and would help clear the waters in which we all swim
It's amusing when people go, "Google still isn't evil. Milosevic is evil. Google hasn't committed genocide; therefore, they are not evil." If Milosevic and other brutal dictators are where the line to evil begins, then even Lodsys consists of saints.
I'm not hiding behind anything- I'm defending the existing meanings of words whereas you are attempting to redefine them to suit your convenience. If you want to start a movement to have patent infringement made into a felony called patent theft go right ahead, but just be prepared to have EVERY firm in the IT business, even Apple, oppose you.
Until such time as there is a crime of patent theft, we should all accept that infringement isn't the same thing for damned good reasons.
It seems that as long as it doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior, you don't think of it as being wrong. If it weren't wrong, the courts wouldn't address the issue. The reason it isn't criminal is because of expediency. If executives were thrown into prison every time some license was violated, there wouldn't be any executives left to run the company.
In addition, executives are protected against this because a company is treated, legally, as an entity, with certain rights. You can't throw a corporation into the pokey, but you can do the next best thing, which is to make them pay up big.
Right, the 'everybody knows' argument. Do I really need to tell you how stupid that is?
If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee, especially if the patent turns out to be invalid. If the patent does turn out to be invalid then presumably by your 'logic' the assignee has committed fraud? Or perhaps racketeering?
Everybody knows that if I demand money for something I have no right to then it's either fraud or racketeering right?
The everybody knows, or the "I know it when I see it" arguments are a legal framework that even Supreme Court justices use. It was used in the question of what pornography is, famously.
If a patent turns out to be invalid, then, obviously, you aren't taking anything, and so it isn't a part of this discussion at all.
But if it is valid, then it just as obviously is valuable. That you fail to recognize that is amazing! Why have patents in the first place if they aren't of value? The very fact of their existence proves your argument that you aren't taking anything of value to be false.
Stealing is Stealing -- Shit is Shit -- it is as clear as that!
Ok, but how do you square that away with the first office actions on these patents going mostly against Oracle? If stealing is stealing, and if not licensing a patent is stealing, what is the crime when you license a patent and the patent is invalid?
Is the licensor selling stolen goods? Is it fraud? Is it racketeering? What is it? Do you realize that if you pay license fees for a patent which is subsequently invalidated you don't get any of that money back?
The reason why infringing a patent isn't theft is because it's not clear cut, you don't have absolute title to a patent in the way that you do to say your TV set.
No - I'm attempting to demonstrate to you how profoundly stupid your argument is, by asserting something equally stupid in the hope that it might get through. I'm not sanguine of the chances, but I keep trying.
As for convoluting things, you're the one who dragged copyright into the patent discussion in order to bolster the claim that it's theft, before switching to a claim of cultural equivalence. Because that's not muddying the waters at all right?
My arguments make perfect sense. It's yours that are lacking. Others brought copyright into this before me. You mentioned this as well. When Google book scanning was first brought up, an argument you joyfully joined, that was well before my post.
It seems that as long as it doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior, you don't think of it as being wrong. If it weren't wrong, the courts wouldn't address the issue. The reason it isn't criminal is because of expediency. If executives were thrown into prison every time some license was violated, there wouldn't be any executives left to run the company.
In addition, executives are protected against this because a company is treated, legally, as an entity, with certain rights. You can't throw a corporation into the pokey, but you can do the next best thing, which is to make them pay up big.
I've never said that. I think it's wrong to attack people based on ad hominems for example, though that's not illegal. I don't think that patent infringement is necessarily wrong because I think so many patents are terrible, but it is illegal, it's just not criminal.
As to not being able to throw a company into the pokey, that's true but a felony conviction against a company can frequently destroy it. Arthur Anderson was one example. News Corp may be facing a similar fate if it turns out that the News of the World hacked any US voicemail.
I'm attempting to keep a level of rationality in this discussion which seems otherwise to be lacking.
The everybody knows, or the "I know it when I see it" arguments are a legal framework that even Supreme Court justices use. It was used in the question of what pornography is, famously.
Yes so by that argument patent infringement is legally theft because everybody knows theft when they see it? Wait, patent infringement isn't theft, which means that the court thinks that not everybody would think it is.
You just sunk your own battleship.
If a patent turns out to be invalid, then, obviously, you aren't taking anything, and so it isn't a part of this discussion at all.
Except a priori you can't know whether it's valid or not. Which is why infringement isn't morally equivalent to theft, because generally you don't even know if you did infringe a real patent until after the end of the legal fight. Google is certainly wilfully infringing Oracle's patents, but it almost certainly has some plausible case for claiming that they aren't or shouldn't be valid.
But if it is valid, then it just as obviously is valuable. That you fail to recognize that is amazing! Why have patents in the first place if they aren't of value? The very fact of their existence proves your argument that you aren't taking anything of value to be false.
When did I ever say that valid patents weren't valuable? Never. Why don't you stick with disagreeing with what I say rather than disagreeing with straw men that you claim I believe? Is it just too hard?