Hood wrote:
Is there sth written that i have to have the agreement of producer to use it.
Yes. This is true of almost all commercial software, and is certainly true of most commercial chess programs. Fritz, Junior, etc, although the terms of the license agreements vary. When you install software, the installation program displays the license agreement. You usually have to click an "Accept" button to accept the terms of the license agreement. This is standard practice for commercial software
Standard practice doesn't make it legal. The problem is that you already payed for the program by the time you see this EULA.
This is what caused them to be ruled non-enforceable in some jurisdictions.
It seems to be a matter of where you live to know whether such travesties can be forced on you.
They have indeed nothing to do with laws of nature. A patent represents a reasonable deal between an inventor and society. The inventor publishes the full details of his invention in return for a temporary monopoly on the invention.
Otherwise the inventor would have to rely on trade secrets and (now) the DMCA.
Patent law should only apply in areas where it benefits society. Not in mathematics or software engineering for example where it simply impedes progress.
lmader wrote:
Yes. This is true of almost all commercial software, and is certainly true of most commercial chess programs. Fritz, Junior, etc, although the terms of the license agreements vary. When you install software, the installation program displays the license agreement. You usually have to click an "Accept" button to accept the terms of the license agreement. This is standard practice for commercial software
Hood wrote:
I know when i am buying a chess program i am signing nth.
False. See above.
thanks for the answer.
When i am buying i am signing nth it is still true not false. When i am installing i am made sometimes to accept sth but in my opinion it is to late and it is not fair. I payed before. I shall be informed about all conditions while buying.
They have indeed nothing to do with laws of nature.
I used that comparison because to many people the things they are used to (based on your culture and upbringing) almost seem like laws of nature. They become so ingrained within the person that they cannot even imagine any other way.
A patent represents a reasonable deal between an inventor and society. The inventor publishes the full details of his invention in return for a temporary monopoly on the invention.
There is a lot of presumptions about WHY this should be done and it's those presumptions that I seriously question. I'm not wise enough to really know whether this is a reasonable thing or not - it's certainly a complex issue. But my suspicion is that it hurts society in the long run. It's an arbitrary restriction that comes with heavy baggage.
Otherwise the inventor would have to rely on trade secrets and (now) the DMCA.
I don't have a problem with trade secrets as long as they are not legally protectable. If you are able to keep your ideas secret then more power to you, but if I manage to figure it out then I should be able to use the idea because I don't believe ideas should be like property that can be owned by someone.
Patent law should only apply in areas where it benefits society. Not in mathematics or software engineering for example where it simply impedes progress.
I agree with that but the question is what area does it actually benefit society? I happen to believe that patent laws do not benefit society at all because by their nature a patent is designed to keep people from using and sharing good ideas.
Do not misunderstand me. I don't like patents either.
I guess the farmacuetical companies are the companies that rely most on patents. New medicines require years of development and testing. Once a working product is created it becomes trivial to copy. So the companies protect their investments using patents.
Without patents it seems to me that farmaceutical companies would not have a business model. Perhaps in that case the creation of medicines would depend on governement funding. Perhaps that would work just as well. I don't know.
Michel wrote:Do not misunderstand me. I don't like patents either.
I guess the farmacuetical companies are the companies that rely most on patents. New medicines require years of development and testing. Once a working product is created it becomes trivial to copy. So the companies protect their investments using patents.
Without patents it seems to me that pharmaceutical companies would not have a business model. Perhaps in that case the creation of medicines would depend on governement funding. Perhaps that would work just as well. I don't know.
My argument is basically in the abstract - I don't think you can take the patent laws and just throw them out without doing some short term damage.
Having said that, I recognize that it would change a lot of business models, but not necessarily for the worst. In fact I assert that this would be a very good thing, ESPECIALLY for the health care systems which is pretty much based on a broken business model which is to make as much money as possible from sick people.
Michel wrote:Do not misunderstand me. I don't like patents either.
I guess the farmacuetical companies are the companies that rely most on patents. New medicines require years of development and testing. Once a working product is created it becomes trivial to copy. So the companies protect their investments using patents.
Without patents it seems to me that farmaceutical companies would not have a business model. Perhaps in that case the creation of medicines would depend on governement funding. Perhaps that would work just as well. I don't know.
Of course it would work. You say that they invest a lot of money to develop a drug. That is true, but the the hard work was developed by gov. funding. a. k. a. basic science. Without it, private companies could not run. You have to also take into account all the bogus science that is carry out in companies not to discover something new, but just to beat a patent. That is a complete waste of resources.
Do you know how many truly *new* drugs have been discovered in tha last decade? not more than ten. All the rest have been derivatives.
Michel wrote:Do not misunderstand me. I don't like patents either.
I guess the farmacuetical companies are the companies that rely most on patents. New medicines require years of development and testing. Once a working product is created it becomes trivial to copy. So the companies protect their investments using patents.
Without patents it seems to me that pharmaceutical companies would not have a business model. Perhaps in that case the creation of medicines would depend on governement funding. Perhaps that would work just as well. I don't know.
My argument is basically in the abstract - I don't think you can take the patent laws and just throw them out without doing some short term damage.
Having said that, I recognize that it would change a lot of business models, but not necessarily for the worst. In fact I assert that this would be a very good thing, ESPECIALLY for the health care systems which is pretty much based on a broken business model which is to make as much money as possible from sick people.
This deserves a long thread but absolutely agree with you. I am glad I am not the only crazy. We will be better off with no patents whatsoever. Jonas Salk did not patent the polio vaccine. If there is something important and meaningful to be developed, it will be developed as history showed us.
Of course it would work. You say that they invest a lot of money to develop a drug. That is true, but the the hard work was developed by gov. funding. a. k. a. basic science
Most medicines are not interesting enough for basic science but still they have to be developed, tested for safety etcetera.
Somebody has to do this.
ESPECIALLY for the health care systems which is pretty much based on a broken business model which is to make as much money as possible from sick people.
What can one say? Should a company that develops a great new scanner be blamed for ultimately making money of sick people? Or should they instead be praised for helping sick people?
Of course it would work. You say that they invest a lot of money to develop a drug. That is true, but the the hard work was developed by gov. funding. a. k. a. basic science
Most medicines are not interesting enough for basic science but still they have to be developed, tested for safety etcetera.
Somebody has to do this.
ESPECIALLY for the health care systems which is pretty much based on a broken business model which is to make as much money as possible from sick people.
What can one say? Should a company that develops a great new scanner be blamed for ultimately making money of sick people? Or should they instead be praised for helping sick people?
I don't have any issue with people getting compensated for this, they could not do this if they had to first support themselves doing something else. You cannot be a doctor if you cannot feed yourself and your family.
The issue is with the patents. Fair competition is disabled by these patents and it enables companies to make ridiculous profits while holding back technology.
With fair competition, this company can still make a profit, but they will face healthy competition which means they will have to price their technology competitively. And with competition other companies are free to improve on the same technology, driving both the quality of the product up and the price down.
