Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
I favor fair use. That includes at least the ability to reverse engineer interfaces. I also beleive in open engineering standards, and "freedom to tinker".. I resent the use of engineering practice to restrict my use of devices that I own, or to unfairly restrict competition and invention.
I especially think the idea of patenting an algorythm is ludicrous, and have ever since that court decision came down in the 1970's. |
MaggieL has cited a problem occurring in a nation where 'experience with innovation' is diminishing - especially among those who make laws.
For example, had Microsoft split Windows from Application Software groups, then Windows would not be manipulated to selfishly serve Applications group. Then Windows would have been more helpful; telling us what various functions did. Currently, too much in Windows is held secret for little reason technical. For example, do you know what each *.DLL does? And yet no 'proprietary secret' exists there. Reasons to hide that information may be due more to avoiding embarrassment.
Once Microsoft did tell us what the various functions inside Windows and DOS do. We are not discussing 'release of code'. We are discussing what each general function (ie *.DLL file) does. The only reason to keep that secret is self serving. Therefore it amazes me how many computer experts don't even know what happens in an OS. What does alg.exe do and why can we not even know what it is doing? Secret. Don't ask or Cheney will have us arrested? That's bull. Again, violating 'rights to tinker' only for self serving reasons.
For example, PING (like in all other OSes) returns a code based upon its actions. Generally a program that encounters no error returns an error code of zero (as Unix was doing 30 years ago). So what are the return codes (errorlevel) returned by PING? You don't need to know? That's a secret? No. That's bullshit to stifle 'tinkering'. Or to hide some glaring 'programmer has a disorganized mind' errors in PING.
Why should Mickey Mouse be protected under copyright for 70 years? Same nonsense. Whereas patents and copyrights should provide the creator with a decade or two of protection, today we keep chaning the laws - increasing the number of decades - protect a dead creator for only self serving reasons. Its also called buying a politician or called corruption.
This need to protect a manufacturer means he has maybe four plus years to profit. Four years later, if he does not have a better product, then cloners should take up that market. That is what happened to IBM in the late 1980s when IBM management was intentionally stifling innovation (because of 'computer illiteracy'). You should know the names of stifled innovation: Microchannel, VGA video, PS/2, Token Ring, OS/2, Taligent and even a need to keep selling 286 based machines. As a result (because we did not protect an anti-innovation IBM), then tinkers and other innovators advanced the computer industry. Too much protection for any manufacturer is bad and yet is too often advocated by those with little 'innovation' experience and a love for decisions based upon political contributions.
One final point. An innovator in GM develops a new suspension. GM refuses to use this patented idea. So the idea should sit stifled for 30 years? Bull. If a company chooses to not use or market that innovation, then its creator should have free access to his innovation. Current laws instead pervert innovation. This example was McPherson Strut suspension described to me by a mechanical engineer back in the late 60s and not seen in America because is was being stifled - not used. McPherson Strut was patented by GM in 1946 and kept out of the world for how long - how many decades? You tell me.
If you know what should and should not be patented, then you first know details of innovation stories such as McPherson Suspension. If you don't appreciate such stories, then you may have a lawyers or MBAs perspective; therefore be part of the problem. Those who want to stifle even tinkering are also another example of the Fatherland Security attitude.