Comment

Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit

So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code?

Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven’t changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case.

became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections

Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.

these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.

Just because they can, doesn’t mean it’s something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?

This is what my reply was to

Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn’t properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Alaknar@lemm.ee ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code?

Depends on the patent.

according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case

It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”. If you’re 100% certain, hit Amazon lawyers up, I’m sure they’ll love to talk to you about it - it’s literally free money for them and maybe a big payout for you, right?

Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.

The hilarious thing is that you’re like so many other “revolutionaries” who come in and go: “oh no, the X rules are stifling the market/competition/free exchange of information/whatever” while being completely ignorant on how these rules came to be.

It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it, completely oblivious to the fact that it was the capitalists of the XIX century who created them to increase profits (because having to replace skilled labourers became a high cost factor).

You strike me as someone who thinks that copyright and other IP protection laws are something that was set up in XX (maybe XIX) century as a means to protect the wealthy. Am I wrong?

Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents

Right. So when I refused to change the scope, you decided to call me an idiot. How very gentlemanly of you.

source
- SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  Depends on the patent.
  
  Not how that works, stop talking out of your ass (Gottschalk v. Benson)
  
  It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”.
  
  You keep switching between moral and legal arguments. They are not the same.
  
  It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it
  
  Deflection
  
  You strike me as
  
  Strawman
  
  you decided to call me an idiot
  
  Literally mirroring your words back at you
  
  source
  - Alaknar@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Not how that works
    
    It’s exactly how it works. You can patent the code, the solution, the material, whatever the fuck you want. That’s what a patent IS.
    
    You keep switching between moral and legal arguments. They are not the same.
    
    Oh, do elaborate!
    
    Deflection
    
    Example of a similar thought-process.
    
    Strawman
    
    Huh? That wasn’t an argument, mate, that was an assumption and a question. Are you OK?
    
    I still kinda’ hope I’d get an answer, though.
    
    Literally mirroring your words back at you
    
    Well, not “literally” and not quite “mirroring”. I think you need some rest, mate, you seem tired and unfocused.
    
    source