[Tfug] [OT] Microsoft Windows 7: Upgrade or just buy a pizza?

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Zack Williams <zdwzdw at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Detroit should *give* us "basic" automobiles for free -- folks who
> > want sound systems, navigation systems, better gas mileage, etc.
> > would then be the only folks who would *have* to pay (for those
> > "improvements").  <grin>
> 
> When Detroit finds a way to replicate their cars for less than a
> dollar, I'll agree with you. :)

So, why have you decided that the cost of replicating
(manufacturing) the item is the driving concern over whether
or not the item should be "charged for" (blech!  crappy
sentence)?

Pharmaceutical products are reproduced for near $0.00.
Contact lenses (disposable ones) fall in the same category.
Why don't you hound the drug companies and contact lens
manufacturers to give *their* products away?  Should everything 
in the "Dollar Store" be free?  (since, by definition, an
item that sells for less than a buck must cost less than
a buck to "replicate")

I've yet to hear a convincing rationale for why software should
be free but other things don't have to be.  (why should we have
to pay for *books*?  newspapers?  music?  distribute them
electronically for the same cost as software).

IMO, most folks making noise about free software just don't
want to have to *pay* for the software that they want.
(Hey, I know -- *I* don't like shelling out thousands of
dollars every time I need to upgrade a CAD program or buy 
a new version of some development tool suite.)

How many of these "advocates" have contributed code to one
of the open source projects?  Or, even taken the time to fully
document and submit a bug report for their favorite appliication?
Or, sent beer/pizza money to a development team maintaining
said product?  :-/

> What I meant was that there is plenty of money out there in the
> service, customization, and support industries, and that isn't going
> away anytime soon, and in many cases can't be shipped overseas.

<grin>  Don't delude yourself.  Damn near everything can get shipped
overseas!
 
> Also, on a philosophical note, is it better to have the
> programmers of the world continuing to reinvent the wheel 
> via competition among themselves, or building upon the 
> shoulders of the peers to reach unforeseen heights?

Make no mistake, you're preaching to the choir, here!
But, the same can be said of any industry.  Why don't the
automotive engineers at ____ share the *details* of their
designs with their counterparts/competitors at __________?
Why don't pharmaceutical houses share the research they
are doing on new drugs with their competitors (*before*
they have "protected" their IP)?

IMO, one of the big problems in "science" has been protection
of IP that *shouldn't* be "protectable".  Patenting genes
(cripes, I'll grant you the patent when you can explain to
me IN DETAIL *exactly* how that gene interacts with the
body's mechanisms and EVERYTHING that it does to the organism;
i.e., so that you can demonstrate that you know enough about
it to realistically claim that it is "your property"), etc.

In the 70's, there was a lot of fighting over whether software
should be patentable.  But, back then, we were looking at
software as an alternative way of implementing a "thing".
I.e., instead of designing a circuit to accelerate a motor
at maximum torque, write a piece of *code* to do the same.
It was a novel way of doing something that was already being
done in a more conventional way.

But, since then, software has become more ephemeral.  The "things
that it does" don't have a 1:1 correspondence with tradional
"processes".  So, patents become too far reaching in their
ramifications.  Imagine patenting the *act* of driving a nail.
"I'm sorry sir, you can't use that rock to drive that tent peg
into the soil.  The rock is analagous to a hammer and the
tent peg to a nail.  As such, you are infringing on our patent
for 'driving nails'.  Either pay us $X for each tent peg you
drive *or* sleep out under the stars...."

Patents should have lifespans commensurate with the lifespans
of the technology to which they are applied (e.g., two years?
for a "software patent").

The same sort of nonsense applies to license terms.  "While
driving your nail with this hammer, you must not LOOK at the
hammer *or* nail during the process as their are trade secrets
involved that we must protect.  If you *do* look at the hammer
or nail, that is a clear violation of the terms of your license
and you must immediately *pull* the nail and promise never
to drive another one in your lifetime!"

If you want to claim that something of yours is so "valuable",
then I should be able to sue you when it doesn't meet its
expectations in the market.  What good is a patent/license
if it is protecting a defective *product*?

"Hi, Mr. Patent Examiner.  I'd like to present an application
for a device that makes gold out of water.  Here are all of the
required forms and the filing fee.  No, the device doesn't
really *work* -- there are some bugs in my design so the
'patent proof' that I've built isn't actually doing what I
claim it *should*... but, I'll handle that problem with a
disclaimer on the package when I sell the item to the public..."

People need to be compensated for their time and ideas.  But,
that compensation should be *fair* and not crippling.  Folks
should want to invest their time coming up with new and *better*
ideas rather than litigating the defense of their *old* ideas.
(e.g., look at how long the stewpit GIF patents annoyed
developers -- and there is nothing magical about a GIF file...
witness the ease with which PNG replaced it).

Too often, licenses, patents, etc. are used as crutches by
companies that have lost their technological "spark" and need
to live on past glories to support themselves.

<shrug>  Just my $0.03