Hey drop us a line about the show. Feel free to ask questions, provide feedback and criticism, or just ramble on about anything your little heart desires.
Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann
-
greggh
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:17 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Post
by greggh » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:08 am
I think not
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10152343-93.html
Here's Jobs on copyrights, patents, and intellectual property...
If copyright dies, if patents die, if the protection of intellectual property is eroded, then people will stop investing. That hurts everyone. People need to have the incentive that if they invest and succeed, they can make a fair profit. Otherwise, they'll stop investing. But on another level entirely, it's just wrong to steal. Or, let's put it another way: it is corrosive to one's character to steal. We want to provide a legal alternative.
Couldn't disagree more. Especially with regard to patents. Contrary to the self-serving defense that Jobs puts forward, I can't think of one single other thing that has been more detrimental to innovation than software idea patents.
-
MattKingUSA
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:49 am
- Location: Dallas TEXAS
-
Contact:
Post
by MattKingUSA » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:35 am
I have to agree with Jobs.
-
jstgtpaid
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:14 pm
Post
by jstgtpaid » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:14 am
I need to read the article, but wow, what a different perspective he presents to the copyrights/patents issue. Instead of talking about inventing or innovation, he talks about investing.
It is a curious perspective. The track record for innovation without patents is clear. But investing is another area altogether. Its a logical statement that investors want a return on their money. However, the question then becomes can investors get ROI if they purchase something other than IP?
I would tend to believe that investors can get ROI on their money without purchasing IP. There are many products that are the same from an IP perspective and frequently the one that provides the best return for the customer wins.
Eliminating IP issues may actually force the companies to focus on what the customer wants.
However, reading between the lines, I think he is saying that IP guarantees that one can charge more, thereby achieving a higher profit.
Can giving the customer the best product in an open market also achieve that goal?
-
greggh
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:17 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Post
by greggh » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:28 am
Speaking of "stealing", Xerox PARC would like their operating system back that he "stole" from them. He should really return it. It will be beneficial to his character.
On a more serious note. I hope Steve Jobs gets well. The guy may be fighting for his life. I sincerely hope he wins.
-
Gomer_X
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:31 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
-
Contact:
Post
by Gomer_X » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:17 am
greggh wrote:
Couldn't disagree more. Especially with regard to patents. Contrary to the self-serving defense that Jobs puts forward, I can't think of one single other thing that has been more detrimental to innovation than software idea patents.
I don't think that's the point. He's talking about investing, not innovating. Hard to tell from this small clip of the article what he means by "investing."
Do we really care if no one is "investing" in music? If he means people will stop buying music without copyrights, that's been proven wrong many times.
