916
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
916 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59517 readers
2784 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine if you had a hammer and decided to use it to hit a nail and then someone came along and said "I see you're using my method to build a house! Pay up!"
Well, you can't patent something like that!
Imagine you open up a game engine, any engine, and decide you need to point to an objective so you decide to use an arrow. A game company says "You're using our method to identify objectives! Pay up!" and that one is a unique mechanic?
How long has humanity been using arrows to point to things? How can you patent it just because it's a digital arrow?
Jfc this guy
He's right.
No, the very premise of that user's analogy is that he isn't profiting from it. If somebody invented hammering nails literally this year and a company came in selling it as a product without permission, then it would be comparable. It reads as if he failed to read my comment entirely but still replied with multiple paragraphs.
The game development analogy is better, floating arrows about characters heads was actually patented, but it was widely criticized and it expired in 2019. Plus I already took offense to simple mechanisms and especially certain software and firmware solutions.
A patient on hitting a nail with hammer is ridiculous if it's your framing or theirs.
Countless buildings would never be built if you didnt invent hammer and nails, being paid royalties for a few years by large businesses who make use of it seems pretty fair.
You have absolutely zero knowledge of history, I'm embarrassed for you.
We're very clearly not talking about history, we're talking about the ridiculous hypothetical of if Hammering Nails to build Houses was patented today.
I can understand why you'd think that was fucking silly, my original response to it was "jfc this guy"
Yeah pretty much, that comment set the mood. I'm cool, I hope you are too.
It is interesting as a thought experiment if very basic human improvements could have been shut out from other people using them.
What if, for example, Plato was able to "copy right" his ideas. Or if any of the ideas from the Renaissance where prevented from being iterated on. Would we have the scientific method today?
Edit: Electricity? Pfft have fun with only one person owning the right to use it for 175 years. Next to no improvements for almost two centuries.
Again, people are not shut out from patented ideas. Tbey're shut out from selling them to third parties. And Electricity WAS patented in the USA, they lasted 17 years from the date of issue.
We're making two different points.
It's fine.
My point is that ya'll lie every time your moutha open.
Are you mental? Where did that come from?
I think someone just pissed in his Cheerios this morning.
Thank you. I thought we were discussing things. Apparently not lol
The ludicrousness is the point. "Capture a creature in a ball"... How close is that to Red Dead's lasso? Could Nintendo patent capturing a creature with a rope? Does anyone hold that patent yet? No, it would be silly to try to patent something like that - yet at one point I'm certain it was someone's "technique" while everyone else was jumping on the horses back like Breath of the Wild.
This thread started with a general statement about patent laws with a glaring innacuracy that it applied to noncommercial applications and in perpetuity. That is what I argued against. I fully support PalWorld.
If that were Nintendo's justification they would lose instantly. You can patent and/or claim intellectual property for very specific named designs, but you cannot do so for vague narrative concepts. Example: PokeBalls in various colorschemes is a go, but "a ball that capture creatures" is not good enough to patent.
🪞
Hey man, I'm future you. I here to give past me a warning. You keep looking like a complete fool and when you look for evidence to support your false claims, it turns out you were wrong the whole time, so you built a time machine to stop yourself. Anyway, the warning is to only use 1.11 Jiggawatts, as you miss the return time to stop yourself from looking foolish by about a day. Good luck!
Hey, further future you, due to the nature of paradoxes your specific version doesn't exist as a result of this timeline; and thank fuck for that because you're a total loser.