Re: [Hx] What do you think of this

[Wade Brezina]

Daniel,

Thinking about this a bit more... Are you serious?

You looked at that and thought folk songs rather than the tablet or gesture prior art?

Wade

On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Daniel Lincoln Kegan wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Helix/WB wrote:
>> <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html>
> Kirby Ferguson, Embrace the remix. June 2012 TED Talk
>
> Unfortunately, Kirby totally overlooks the important distinction between
> using material in the public domain (eg old folk tunes) and proprietary private property,
> as well as not attending to the well developed law of derivative copyright works and
> obviousness and related issues in patent law.
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the mailing list <Hel...@realpeople.com>. To unsubscribe, e-mail <Helix...@realpeople.com>; to switch to DIGEST mode, e-mail <Helix-L...@realpeople.com>; contact a human being at <Helix-L...@realpeople.com>. Google archive since 20 August 2006: http://groups.google.com/group/helix-l. Basic archive since 1 Jan 2006: http://mail.realpeople.com:8100/Lists/Helix-L/List.html
>


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You received this message because you are subscribed to the mailing list <Hel...@realpeople.com>. To unsubscribe, e-mail <Helix...@realpeople.com>; to switch to DIGEST mode, e-mail <Helix-L...@realpeople.com>; contact a human being at <Helix-L...@realpeople.com>. Google archive since 20 August 2006: http://groups.google.com/group/helix-l. Basic archive since 1 Jan 2006: http://mail.realpeople.com:8100/Lists/Helix-L/List.html

[Daniel A Kegan]

On Nov 9, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Helix Discussion List wrote:
> Daniel,
> Thinking about this a bit more... Are you serious?
> You looked at that and thought folk songs rather than the tablet or gesture prior art?
> Wade

Wade, Thursday 8 November 2012

I tend to notice inconsistencies, and non-horizontal hanging pictures.
I started formal study of law 1981, Macintosh 1984.
And Kirby starts out his 10 minutes with music, Dylan and folk music, IIRC.
So yes, I seriously had a music framework established by Kirby, within which he
discusses his imprecise ideas.
Additionally, IIRC he leads talking about Dylan taking (perhaps using "stealing")
prior music, and towards the end uses "steal" for Steve Jobs.

Steal is to take what one is not entitled to, unlawfully (about);
Take may be lawful or unlawful.
Loose talk confuses many,
and doesn't help voters and intellectual property (IP) creators and users
rationally discuss how society ought to define IP property.

Most "property" laws are creations of the society.
When I took Economics 101, air and water were free goods.
Rachel Carlson, Barry Commoner, Gaylord Nelson, etc.
Then they became unfree.
Now pollution can be an asset, when trading pollution rights.

The Apple-Samsung and related current litigation if fairly complicated,
involving at least utility patent, design patent, trademark, and unfair
competition--all different legal concepts with different rules for
use and infringement. Moreover, with suits in several nations,
the results have been inconsistent.

Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography I found fascinating, fast reading.
I've lived with Mac since 1984, I learned a lot more from the book.
I knew many Mac (and Lisa) functions were built on Xerox PARC.
What I hadn't heard until reading the book, is that Apple paid
$$ to Xerox for the rights to visit and use the technology.

It may have been dumb for Xerox HQ in CT to sell the rights to
PARC (in CA) development, but that's currently the right of managers
of a corporation.

That's enough response I think.

So yes, I'm very serious.
Kirby mangles concepts,
and mis-educates,
and distracts from the honest issues involved in creativity and
fair allocation of creator and use rights.

Daniel Kegan, Chicago

[Steven Finder]

On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Wade Brezina wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> From my perspective, you miss the broader point. Would society have been better served if Xerox had patented the Mouse? At the time I certainly wanted Apple to prevail against MS. However, I don't think we would have the marvelous technology we have today if Apple would have won.

This is definitely one of those "what if" discussions around which people can disagree. The broader perspective in this statement is that patents tend to inhibit innovation.

I tend to disagree. Let's assume that Xerox had patented the mouse and that Apple had licensed it from them. I add that stipulation because it seems that Xerox was doing nothing with the mouse on a commercial scale and it was Apple that brought the mouse to market.

This would have meant that competitors who wanted to compete against Apple would have been forced to come up with alternative pointing devices, rather than just making a different kind of mouse. Think of the technologies that have not really matured or went no where; voice commands, hands free pointing devices, and balls to name a few. Also it is quite likely that alternatives like track pads would have developed much earlier. Today we may have actually had much more choice and a more dynamic difference in operating systems.

I am of the belief that when people want to innovate, they tend to look at incremental innovation. So we go from one button mice to two button mice and then to multi button mice. But if a line of innovation is closed for a period of time then innovation takes larger jumps. I think that patent law tends to promote innovation and ultimately is better for society.

Steven Finder

[Wade Brezina]

Steven, They didn’t by the right to the mouse!!!! The mouse was never a right to be bought.! The rest of your argument is BS because of that fact. They never bought ANY IP rights. They only bought the rights to look at what other people had been looking at!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Xerox had established IP rights, and apple would have actually licensed those, the story would be COMPLETELY different.

[Steven Finder]

Wade,

I'm sorry. I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

> Steven, They didn’t by the right to the mouse!!!! The mouse was never a right to be bought.! The rest of your argument is BS because of that fact. They never bought ANY IP rights. They only bought the rights to look at what other people had been looking at!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not sure how those statements have any bearing on what I wrote. I am not sure how those "facts" invalidate anything I wrote, since I never refer to anything between Apple and Xerox other than as a hypothetical. I am not sure where I make the point that Apple licensed anything from Xerox or not. Invalidating my point because of facts that I didn't bring up is an interesting approach.

Finally, why so many exclamation points?

Steven Finder

[Ron Jenkins]

Engelbart never received any royalties for it, as his patent ran out before it became widely used in personal computers.

Wikipedia