New version of SIR out! But...

[Space Boy]

from intangible to tangible?
paying for the right to use BASIC OPERATIONS = freedom?
only a fool would be so keen to go careening down slippery slope like this:
The idea that being unable to patent a fundamental process of logical deduction would lead to no ownership of houses and cars is one of the most bizarre examples of fallacy I have come across in a long time. American are we?

What, I tried to explain is the basis of common law. Ownership, and the ability to prove ownership (without resorting to violence) is one of the fundamentals of law, a legal system and a civilized society.

You seem to view the right of ownership to original thought, creativity and expression, as something that is very undesirable. I think Picasso, Mozart and any artist you dare to mention would be extremely demotivated if they were not able to put their own names to their own works of art.

A hypothetical question: If you owned a business, why would I, or anyone else, ever want to work for you? The skills I might have would be considered by you as BASIC OPERATIONS - for which you don't want to pay. So, what's left? A bit of creativity, some original thought, coding skills and some experience. None of which you seem to consider as valuable. It's not looking like a very attractive proposition for me.

So, in your own business, what exactly would be the added value of anything you might produce?

[Peel]

Spaceboy, I really think your arguments are all over the place here. I can't speak for Spoonbender, but it doesn't seem to me like anybody's arguing against anything other than software *patents*, specifically.
Patents are supposed to help ensure that people get the just rewards for their hard work, and in doing so to also encourage innovation. But over the past couple of decades or so, their mandate has expanded to the point where their original purpose has largely been forgotten, and they seem to many to have become an impairment on innovation.

What, I tried to explain is the basis of common law. Ownership, and the ability to prove ownership (without resorting to violence) is one of the fundamentals of law, a legal system and a civilized society.

Civilization existed for thousands of years, and codified "common law" for hundreds, before the modern system of patents (arguably the idea of "ownership" of non-material things) was invented.

I think Picasso, Mozart and any artist you dare to mention would be extremely demotivated if they were not able to put their own names to their own works of art.

Nobody's saying anything about people taking credit for their work; I honestly have no idea where this is coming from.
But Picasso didn't patent cubism. Bach didn't patent the fugue. The notion would have seemed absurd to them, and thankfully people can therefore use these ideas creatively today if they wish, without needing the permission of their descendants, or some corporation/royal family. More importantly, Picasso & Bach were able to use these styles *because* they weren't patented (or patentable).
Today people/companies are patenting things that
- have been in common use already for a long time and were invented by others.
- they have not developed at all or have any intention of developing -- they just want to block others from using them.
- are actually not possible with current technology, but might become possible with some unforseen future technology.
In these sorts of cases, the patent owner has done little to deserve "ownership" of the ideas, the original intentions of patenting are being betrayed, and last but not least the world is potentially far worse off.

A hypothetical question: If you owned a business, why would I, or anyone else, ever want to work for you? The skills I might have would be considered by you as BASIC OPERATIONS - for which you don't want to pay. So, what's left? A bit of creativity, some original thought, coding skills and some experience. None of which you seem to consider as valuable. It's not looking like a very attractive proposition for me.

Again, I really don't know where you're coming from here. Of course you'd be paid. And in a world with strong patents, you're *more* likely to be screwed over by your company, not less. Who do you think is entitled to the patents on employers' work?

[Z3R0T0N1N]

thanx peel. you're right, that is what I have been discussing, and I think that if people simply educated themselves about the issues, there would not be all this confusion.
space(between the ears)boy:
your 'hypothetical argument' has managed to completely skirt the issue at hand, while at the same time using quote fragments completely out of context. Very nice. Have you considered politics?

[aciddose]

i think the problem of patent abuse falls into the category of
general stupidity. as an example, another case is with 'gay marriage'. first of all, technically, marriage is defined by the church, right? why is it represented in government at all?
why not represent a 'legal binding' between two individuals on a much wider scope, and thus allow for polygamy, or the rainbow church of pope st boy george the 14th.

basically, people are just so stupid, such a very basic all in one and easy solution which is incrediblly obvious never occurs to them.

"what? patents hurt people? if we fix the problem and i want to patent something, it would hurt me in the long run no doubt! i'd rather just pay 10x subsidy to wear my pants for no perticular reason lasting even far beyond the scope of normal patents because i'm so dumb i dont even realize someone probably invented pants before a generalized method of 'putting on pants' thousands of years ago, and putting on and wearing those pants probably always seemed obvious! i'm an idiot."


edit:

btw, regarding polygamy, a simple google reveals:
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united ... ndex.shtml

several other religions and cultures are simmilar to islamic religion and culture in this regard. without discussing how polygamy may be good/bad, (the general law of legal binding would hopefully give all members of the agreement equal rights, rather than the current system which is racist, and sexist) it seems it and all other points of view should have a fair place in our culture.

its no wonder those people hate american culture, since american culture prohibits parts of thier cultures. they respond via prohibiting american culture in thiers.

retarded.

before i get into a long political rant, i was just demonstrating my example isnt really that nuts.

[Rangtangtang]

I like the sound of SIR, oh so what, you only have to do a bit of editing, your lucky its available free for download.

I wonder in trying to acheive 0 latency, that the sound quality will suffer a bit??

I think copyright if fair enough, why can't you be rewarded for you discovery, its not forever. It seems so far, there is only one way to acheive 0 latency, and someone owns it.
Is the actual idea or the end result copyrighted? Someone else could be using part of that same code for some other thing and would that come into the copyright?. Its only copyrighted if I want a bit of ambience. Last comment, you got a fight for the right to party.

[bastien]

Good job this didn't happen sooner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 418165.stm

[Space Boy]

Patents are supposed to help ensure that people get the just rewards for their hard work, and in doing so to also encourage innovation. But over the past couple of decades or so, their mandate has expanded to the point where their original purpose has largely been forgotten, and they seem to many to have become an impairment on innovation.

But Picasso didn't patent cubism. Bach didn't patent the fugue.

Again, I really don't know where you're coming from here. Of course you'd be paid. And in a world with strong patents, you're *more* likely to be screwed over by your company, not less. Who do you think is entitled to the patents on employers' work?

I agree (with the first point) that in some (very few) cases the original intention of the patent has been abused.

The idea of a "software patent" is pure nonsense - but some people don't seem to understand the difference between "just software" and an invention that makes use of software for its implementation - those people would like to prevent patenting anything that uses software - and this would be a big mistake.

Picasso didn't patent cubism and Bach didn't patent his chorales. However, both have been well rewarded for their work. Bach in particular was paid well for his work (it was his job I think). This is more than can be said for most artists. The possibility to identify their work as originating from them has added value to their work - this is the same princpal as is meant by a patent.

People who write patents when they work for a company are often well paid by that company and are often only in a position to realize those innovations as a direct result of the investment of those companies in their work. So, the idea that a company screws over its employees again, probably only happens on few occassions.

As for the space between my ears (spoonboiler). Having a discussion, where people disagree, is no excuse to call people names or resort to insults - not in a civilized culture anyway.

[Pollux]

I will say again what I already said before: Space Boy, you are making a confusion between intellectual property and patents.

Of course Bach and Picasso have to be credited for their music or paintings: that's what intellectual property is for -- you can't take a fugue by Bach and say it's yours. This has absolutely nothing to do with patents, and if patents were to disappear, Bach's works would still be protected. But Bach never prevented you from writing your own fugue -- because THAT would be patenting. Imagine how detrimental it would have been to music if all those styles were patented, and you had to buy a licence from Bach Corporation before you could even start writing a fugue!

Intellectual property: good.
Patents: baaad.

[Space Boy]

I will say again what I already said before: Space Boy, you are making a confusion between intellectual property and patents.
Intellectual property: good.
Patents: baaad.

I think not.

Patents, Copyright and Trademarks are all ways of protecting Intellectual property.

The Intellectual property of Bach and Picasso are protected by Copyright. A patent is a different form of protection (for technical people as opposed to artists). The law is slightly different but the principals are the same.

[kylen]

People who write patents when they work for a company are often well paid by that company and are often only in a position to realize those innovations as a direct result of the investment of those companies in their work. So, the idea that a company screws over its employees again, probably only happens on few occassions.

I'm not taking sides here - I just started reading the thread (I always start from the end - why?) then I have to dash off to the hardware store.

I can say that in the Silicon Valley the companies very much own you and your ideas. Any patents are fully realized by the company and the employee is (if they're lucky) given a modest thank you check... also sometimes your patent certificate may be hung on the wall in a display similar to football trophies on display at a high school or college. But the companies own you and your ideas - you even sign papers to that effect upon joining the company. I don't know how it works elsewhere though...

[Pollux]

SpaceBoy:

Yes, patents are a form of intellectual property. But your argumentation was all about intellectual property (and more specifically copyright law), rather than about patents. Everyone here is already convinced that intellectual property in general is good, so there's absolutely no point in arguing about it; unless you think people here are stupid enough to be convinced that patents are good because copyright law is good and both are intellectual property, discussing intellectual property in general is of no relevance to this thread...

[Z3R0T0N1N]

I give up. It's unreal how misinformed some people are. Pollux, you and Peel are exactly right, and seem to be able to express it with a lot less bile than I.
Spaceboy: you are very confused. That's okay, but you should learn about this stuff; especially since you are in business for yourself.
And I am not talking out my ass about this stuff, I finished a couse in college that was entirely concerned with exactly this subject; copyright law, patents, infringement, etc.

[Space Boy]

SpaceBoy:

Yes, patents are a form of intellectual property. But your argumentation was all about intellectual property (and more specifically copyright law), rather than about patents. Everyone here is already convinced that intellectual property in general is good, so there's absolutely no point in arguing about it; unless you think people here are stupid enough to be convinced that patents are good because copyright law is good and both are intellectual property, discussing intellectual property in general is of no relevance to this thread...

I'm not understanding your point here. You seem to be saying that copyright is good and patents are bad. I am saying that there is a misunderstanding in this discussion about what a patent is and what copyright means. Both have complete validity but only when used in the correct context. You don't file a patent for a painting or a song and you don't rely on copyright to protect a new way of realizing a zero latency convolution process (by the way, this can also be realized in hardware, and so a patent is completely appropriate).

Copyright protects an expression of an idea, like a painting, a book or a song. A patent protects a process or apparatus that realizes a novel process. Copyright is for things that you can see, hear, read and copy. A patent protects knowledge, know-how, insight. The creative artists have copyright and the technically creative people have to rely on patents.

As Spoonboiler mentioned, I do make plug-ins. Some of them quite unique. Copyright does NOT protect me from having the unique functionality of my plug-ins copied by other developers. Despite what Spoonboiler suggests, I do have quite some experience of the patenting process.... and protecting intellectual property is of a high importance to me.

I also think this discussion is quite valid. The existence of two patents on zero latency convolution probably means that the developer of SIR is not able to give a zero latency convolution processor away for free (because he doesn't make enough money to pay a license fee). My convolution based plug-in is also not zero latency and will remain that way unless I think of a different way to realize zero latency.

[Rangtangtang]

Can you copyright the written word or sound vibrations?????

[Hovmod]

Can you copyright the written word or sound vibrations?????

I own the patent to five question marks in a row. Can I have your credit card details, please?