Intellectual Property and the Structure of Human Action

[Zlaxer]

Negatory.
Ideas are non-rivalrous. Not property.

So software is to be free then? *Copyrights only protect exact copies (or dam near exact copies) of software.

How about music or movies? are those property?

[Speaker to Animals]

Negatory.
Ideas are non-rivalrous. Not property.

So software is to be free then? *Copyrights only protect exact copies (or dam near exact copies) of software.

Implying we haven't already figured out how to tie expensive software to a single user using technology like encrypted dongles and other solutions.

[Zlaxer]

Negatory.
Ideas are non-rivalrous. Not property.

So software is to be free then? *Copyrights only protect exact copies (or dam near exact copies) of software.

Implying we haven't already figured out how to tie expensive software to a single user using technology like encrypted dongles and other solutions.

And that stops others from de-compiling your code and repackaging it as their own how?

[Zlaxer]

You can argue this point from your contemptible lawyer perspective all day.

[Speaker to Animals]

So software is to be free then? *Copyrights only protect exact copies (or dam near exact copies) of software.

Implying we haven't already figured out how to tie expensive software to a single user using technology like encrypted dongles and other solutions.

And that stops others from de-compiling your code and repackaging it as their own how?

If critical parts of the software are running from your servers, then you control who uses it. There exist lots of ways to tie a software purchase to a specific user.

Nor did patents ever stop software theft either. Disingenuous.

[Zlaxer]

Implying we haven't already figured out how to tie expensive software to a single user using technology like encrypted dongles and other solutions.

And that stops others from de-compiling your code and repackaging it as their own how?

If critical parts of the software are running from your servers, then you control who uses it. There exist lots of ways to tie a software purchase to a specific user.

Then the critical parts are not in public disclosure and can't be improved upon by others - you're stiffling innovation more than patents.

Nor did patents ever stop software theft either. Disingenuous.

Reverse engineering without patent protection is not theft.

[Speaker to Animals]

And that stops others from de-compiling your code and repackaging it as their own how?

If critical parts of the software are running from your servers, then you control who uses it. There exist lots of ways to tie a software purchase to a specific user.

Then the critical parts are not in public disclosure and can't be improved upon by others - you're stiffling innovation more than patents.

Nor did patents ever stop software theft either. Disingenuous.

Reverse engineering without patent protection is not theft.

I don't have a problem with reverse engineering.

Circumventing anti-theft methods to get free access to software that people are selling, though, I am not okay with that. Reverse engineering just implies you figure out how it works and create your own version. Big whoop.

[Zlaxer]

If critical parts of the software are running from your servers, then you control who uses it. There exist lots of ways to tie a software purchase to a specific user.

Then the critical parts are not in public disclosure and can't be improved upon by others - you're stiffling innovation more than patents.

Nor did patents ever stop software theft either. Disingenuous.

Reverse engineering without patent protection is not theft.

I don't have a problem with reverse engineering.

So you're cool with the following scenario -

Startup A spends a cool $2,000,000 (all of their seed cash) developing the latest and greatest medical diagnostic software. Company B buys a copy, reverse engineers it at a cost of $100,000 and then proceeds to undercut Startup A in the market. That's apparently OK in StA- and Fife- World.

[Fife]

[Speaker to Animals]

Then the critical parts are not in public disclosure and can't be improved upon by others - you're stiffling innovation more than patents.




Reverse engineering without patent protection is not theft.

I don't have a problem with reverse engineering.

So you're cool with the following scenario -

Startup A spends a cool $2,000,000 (all of their seed cash) developing the latest and greatest medical diagnostic software. Company B buys a copy, reverse engineers it at a cost of $100,000 and then proceeds to undercut Startup A in the market. That's apparently OK in StA- and Fife- World.

Keeping in mind that Startup A is the first to the market with this technology and has significant advantages in market share that Company B does not possess, while Company B can only begin the process of reverse engineering *after* the software hits the market, which means they have to spend considerable time reverse engineering and then using what they learned to develop their own software competitor.

No, I do not have a problem with it.