Arm China Goes Rogue, Ex-CEO Blocking the Business

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

There are definitely profits to be made by innovating, because it gives you an edge, even if temporarily, and boosts your brand image. This puts you on a better position to further innovate and stay ahead. It's something that happens more often than people thinks. And that's besides any other non-monetary incentives, just purely from a business perspective.

On the other hand, if you can patent-block competitors from catching up, you lose your incentive to continuously innovate, as extracting rent form the existing product is more profitable. It also discourages potential innovators from entering the industry.

Once you take that into account, it become clear that the current IP system can only be good in a quantitative sense, i.e., the positive effects in soem cases outweighing the negatives in other cases. That rules out clear-cut, ex-ante dismissals of the case against it.

I find the opposite view, that the negatives outweigh the positives, to be better founded. Either way, discarding the debate cannot be an informed opinion.

 

Sure. In fact I'll leave it here in case someone else is interested - and then I'll stop derailing already, gone too far  They'll do a better job than me anyway 

Reference: Against Intelectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine.

It seems to me that you are confusing transformative works, with outright copy-pasting.

 

Example:

One should not be able profit from downloading and then reuploading the entire LTT video library to Youtube.

 

One should be able to download, make comedic commentary overtop of every LTT video, and reupload as an original piece, ala MST3K. Although that is something of a legal grey area for a number of reasons.

 

I did start this off by saying that IP/Copyright law does need an overhaul, as it is ridiculously stupid in some areas. That does not mean it should be abolished all together, because that's equally as stupid, especially in the digital age.

[CarlBar]

When i first read this i was like "wait, seriously, wth". then i remembered number 8 from this article, (took some finding again):

 

https://www.wired.com/story/8-ways-overseas-drug-manufacturers-dupe-fda/

[Quadriplegic]

That CEO be like:

[RejZoR]

China just being China I see...

[Sauron]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

That won't even the playing field, If the playing field has no rules then there is no winner and there is no way to punish those who are causing more damage than good.

All rules are arbitrary, not all of them are useful. Copyright is not. You tell me how it helps "punish those who are causing more damage than good".

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know a lot of people want to debate it, but the reality is we have almost 300 years of IP law and business to look back on and see that where no IP protection exists neither does the money.

Because the existence of copyright prevents non copyrighted works from making money. Right now if I do something cool and don't copyright it someone will take it and copyright it themselves.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

All rules are arbitrary, not all of them are useful. Copyright is not. You tell me how it helps "punish those who are causing more damage than good".

that's just demonstrably false.  there is nothing arbitrary about CR or IP law. It might seem random to you, but to those of us who have studied it to any degree know full well there is much debate and refinement that has gone into it.  The whole foundation of IP rests on protecting the reward for development.  I linked to an article earlier that exemplifies what happens to development that isn't protected by said laws.

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Because the existence of copyright prevents non copyrighted works from making money. Right now if I do something cool and don't copyright it someone will take it and copyright it themselves.

That's not how copyright works. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not how copyright works. 

Pretty sure it is. If something is not copyrighted you can just claim you made it. Hell, sometimes you can do it even if it IS copyrighted provided you have enough money and lawyers.

 

There's a reason Linux is copyrighted even though Torvalds has no interest in monetizing it - it's to prevent others from doing so.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Pretty sure it is. If something is not copyrighted you can just claim you made it. Hell, sometimes you can do it even if it IS copyrighted provided you have enough money and lawyers.

As soon as you create something you own the copyright to it.  Having issues with proving you own something is a problem with all laws, not something exclusive to copyright law.  if you can't prove the lawn mower your neighbor stole was yours then that is not a problem with personal property law it is a problem with your neighbor.  

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There's a reason Linux is copyrighted even though Torvalds has no interest in monetizing it - it's to prevent others from doing so.

nope, he could have released it under public domain, then no one could copyright it,  the reason it is CR to him is so he can retain control.

 

 

 

[Sauron]

Just now, mr moose said:

As soon as you create something you own the copyright to it.

Only if you claim you created it. You mentioned cases where "IP wasn't protected" so surely you meant situations where it was stolen or renounced, which is where my point stands.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Having issues with proving you own something is a problem with all laws, not something exclusive to copyright law.  if you can't prove the lawn mower your neighbor stole was yours then that is not a problem with personal property law it is a problem with your neighbor. 

You're missing the point; this is a false equivalency. First of all, property law (while it also has its own problems) refers to physical objects; you and your neighbour can't both be using a single lawn mower at the same time. Secondly, this isn't about proving you own it; it's about making sure that nobody does. I'm given a choice on owning an idea I had or letting someone else own it but I'm not allowed to have nobody own it.

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nope, he could have released it under public domain, then no one could copyright it,  the reason it is CR to him is so he can retain control.

Public domain means someone can take it, modify it, not release the source and copyright it.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Only if you claim you created it. You mentioned cases where "IP wasn't protected" so surely you meant situations where it was stolen or renounced, which is where my point stands.

Nope, Copyright law is very specific, The second you write a sentence (that is unique) you own the copyright to it.  In the event someone tries to steal it from you you have to then prove you wrote it first.   Failing to prove you wrote it first and writing it first are two different things.  Failing to be able to prove something also is not a failing of the law, but a failing of the person relying on it.   Please, read the link, don;t just dismiss it without actually taking the time to understand the context and relevance of the problem.

 

https://www.copyright.com.au/about-copyright/copyright-myths/

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Quote

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You're missing the point; this is a false equivalency. First of all, property law (while it also has its own problems) refers to physical objects; you and your neighbour can't both be using a single lawn mower at the same time. Secondly, this isn't about proving you own it; it's about making sure that nobody does.

I think you missed the point.  The point is simply not about proof, but about claims.  Just because you can't prove you own something doesn't meant he law is flawed or should not exist.  Copyright exist to protect those who want protection.  The arguments you are making have no bearing on that nor give any reason why it should not exist.

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm given a choice on owning an idea I had or letting someone else own it but I'm not allowed to have nobody own it.

Public domain means someone can take it, modify it, not release the source and copyright it.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/

 

Quote

The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.

 

Please stop posting until you understand copyright law and IP law and what the various licenses mean.   If you create something new from something that is public domain, you can only copyright or patent the bit you created, not the original.   If Linux was released under public domain then no one could own it PERIOD.   The best they could do is copyright extensions or add-ons,  or create a whole new kernel from it, but they cannot own it nor stop others from using it.  

[Eaglerino]

the fact cheap labor beats out any shred of integrity and desire to keep your crap to yourself continues to boggle my mind

[Sauron]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you create something new from something that is public domain, you can only copyright or patent the bit you created, not the original.

For software those two things are essentially the same. In fact, for most IP it is. It really doesn't matter what the exact semantics are here on whether the thing you made is technically copyright protected or not when in practice almost every new IP is based on preexisting concepts and ideas that the copyright holder didn't conceive, but was nonetheless able to use and claim as their exclusive property through even minor modifications. THAT is the core of the issue with copyright, not whether it works as intended or not; I'm saying that the way it's intended is just wrong and it should not exist.

 

Very easy example: J.K. Rowling didn't invent the names Harry, Potter, Harry Potter nor the concepts of wizards, magic, schools, castles etcetera; yet you are not allowed to make a copy of any part of her book containing these things, nor use the name "Harry Potter" for another book franchise, nor use any of the broad story ideas detailed in the book to make a videogame or movie (without obtaining Rowling's permission). This is fundamentally unfair; you're not allowed to sell your own work inspired by these ideas and are forced to use "royalty free" ideas that may or may not be part of the art you envisioned.

 

As for software... in much the same way it's fundamentally unfair that you can take freely available technology like a programming language and public domain computer science to make a derivative work and then prevent others from expanding upon it. No idea is entirely original so it's unacceptable that some ideas can be exclusively owned.

[Results45]

16 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Dude was like

 

 

Literally happened in Russia before Covid hit:

.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Literally happened in Russia before Covid hit:

.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

For software those two things are essentially the same. In fact, for most IP it is. It really doesn't matter what the exact semantics are here on whether the thing you made is technically copyright protected or not

 

It actually does matter, it matters a lot.  It is the difference between having your work protected and having your work stolen.  Especially when you have made some very erroneous statements as to the actuality of copyright and IP law.

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

when in practice almost every new IP is based on preexisting concepts and ideas that the copyright holder didn't conceive, but was nonetheless able to use and claim as their exclusive property through even minor modifications. THAT is the core of the issue with copyright, not whether it works as intended or not; I'm saying that the way it's intended is just wrong and it should not exist.

Again, they can only patent or copyright the work they did, not the work it is based on.  That is the whole point.  Also it means that you can't take my work, make a few changes then resell it. you can only sell the bit you changed and not the bit I did unless I give you permission.

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Very easy example: J.K. Rowling didn't invent the names Harry, Potter, Harry Potter nor the concepts of wizards, magic, schools, castles etcetera; yet you are not allowed to make a copy of any part of her book containing these things, nor use the name "Harry Potter" for another book franchise, nor use any of the broad story ideas detailed in the book to make a videogame or movie (without obtaining Rowling's permission). This is fundamentally unfair; you're not allowed to sell your own work inspired by these ideas and are forced to use "royalty free" ideas that may or may not be part of the art you envisioned.

I'm not too sure what you think that is an example of. it's absolutely fair to stop people using someone else's work. Harry potter is a registered trademark and the title of an original works.  Of course you can't create a book called Harry potter.   If you want to create your own book then use your own concepts, not someone else's.

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As for software... in much the same way it's fundamentally unfair that you can take freely available technology like a programming language and public domain computer science to make a derivative work and then prevent others from expanding upon it. No idea is entirely original so it's unacceptable that some ideas can be exclusively owned.

 

How is that not fair? anyone can take that public domain work and create from it themselves.   Again you seem to be confused about what public domain means.   It absolutely means no one can stop you from using it.  you can create a derivative of it and copyright that derivative if you want (that is your work to do that with), but you can't stop people from using the PD works.

 

You also seem to be under the impression that new ideas or products are not new ideas or products because they improve something else.  When you patent a new idea that improves something else you are not patenting the original idea/product, you still have to get a license/permission to use that original patent if you re selling the improvement.    It's no wonder you think the laws are arbitrary, your concepts of fair don't make any sense.

[Sauron]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not too sure what you think that is an example of. it's absolutely fair to stop people using someone else's work. Harry potter is a registered trademark and the title of an original works.  Of course you can't create a book called Harry potter.   If you want to create your own book then use your own concepts, not someone else's.

Harry Potter is literally just a name. There are real people called Harry Potter. Also if you independently came up with a similar story you still couldn't use it because someone else wrote it first, maybe before you were even born. Ideas are not quantifiable and neither is your own contribution to something as complex and rooted in common folklore and knowledge as a fantasy book. Most words were not invented by Rowling; many sentences in Harry Potter could just as easily be used in a completely different story; many characters follow some pretty standard tropes that weren't done first by Rowling; where do you draw the line? What's the "essence" of Harry Potter which makes it unequivocally Rowling's exclusively personal creation?

 

Furthermore, all information (including words and therefore books) can be expressed with a number. Can you claim a number is your personal property and that people can't use it? What about different numerical representations? Do you own the index at which the number Pi contains the entirety of your book? Can I sue you for using the number 38345729837 if I drew my own original art that can be expressed digitally with that number? It's all completely arbitrary and who "owns" a number and who gets shafted is inevitably going to depend on who can afford more and better lawyers.

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How is that not fair? anyone can take that public domain work and create from it themselves.

Yeah, but they can't build on the developments made by the previous person. You have to reinvent a completely different wheel because the guy who made the wheel^tm first won't let you use it or demands a price that you can't pay. This is a huge impediment to progress. What if Intel demanded royalties for using x86 instructions in your program? You'd have to either be able to afford them every time you want to write and distribute some software or go out and make your own CPU with blackjack and hookers, losing years of time and probably not reaching the same level of performance (even if you could afford to do it). Our progress cannot depend on the willingness of a handful of corporations or individuals to let us use their IP at a reasonable price when they themselves built it on things other people came up with and let them use for free. None of our modern technology would exist if everyone chose to strictly enforce their copyright. A law that destroys society if used legitimately to its full extent is a bad law.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.

Please stop posting until you understand copyright law and IP law and what the various licenses mean.   If you create something new from something that is public domain, you can only copyright or patent the bit you created, not the original.   If Linux was released under public domain then no one could own it PERIOD.   The best they could do is copyright extensions or add-ons,  or create a whole new kernel from it, but they cannot own it nor stop others from using it.  

Also I want to point out that this does not contradict what I said in any way. I never said you can claim the original as yours. I said you can copyright the modified version as yours and not disclose the code, preventing anyone else from expanding on your work as you expanded on someone else's.

[williamcll]

Maybe he will become the boss of Nvidia China instead.

[Soppro]

Oh boy, let me get my popcorn ready. Chinese corporate culture is whack ("Ethics? What ethics? Did you just make up that word?"). Corruption and conflicts of interest, wow I'm shocked. The guy probably has links to the government too.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Harry Potter is literally just a name.

You can use harry potter as just a name if you want, but you can't write a book called harry potter and you can write a book about a wizard called harry potter however you'll have to make sure it is sufficiently different  for obvious reasons.    That is not a bad thing.

 

Quote

There are real people called Harry Potter. Also if you independently came up with a similar story you still couldn't use it because someone else wrote it first, maybe before you were even born. Ideas are not quantifiable and neither is your own contribution to something as complex and rooted in common folklore and knowledge as a fantasy book. Most words were not invented by Rowling; many sentences in Harry Potter could just as easily be used in a completely different story; many characters follow some pretty standard tropes that weren't done first by Rowling; where do you draw the line? What's the "essence" of Harry Potter which makes it unequivocally Rowling's exclusively personal creation?

That's not how copyright works though.  You seem to be under the impression that because you can rationalize everything as being the same then nothing is different.  That's not how anything works let alone creative works and IP.

 

Quote

Furthermore, all information (including words and therefore books) can be expressed with a number. Can you claim a number is your personal property and that people can't use it? What about different numerical representations? Do you own the index at which the number Pi contains the entirety of your book? Can I sue you for using the number 38345729837 if I drew my own original art that can be expressed digitally with that number? It's all completely arbitrary and who "owns" a number and who gets shafted is inevitably going to depend on who can afford more and better lawyers.

??  Now I know you have stepped widely away from thee discussion.  That is  some serious abstraction there.   Shakespeare is just words there for not unique? Numbers cannot be copyrighted so why even bring it up?   In fact the closest you can come to IP and copyright for numbers and shades is if it is in a trademark.  I.E Cadbury's purple is trademarked, you cannot use that shade purple for a chocolate product.  the number 76 is trademarked for an American fuel company and you can't use that number as a trademark for a fuel product.  They are not copy rights or patents and no one can sue you for using those colors or numbers unless you are breaching trademark laws. 

 

Quote

Yeah, but they can't build on the developments made by the previous person. You have to reinvent a completely different wheel because the guy who made the wheel^tm first won't let you use it or demands a price that you can't pay.

Which is exactly the point, his work is protected so you can't take it without paying for it.  Just like he can't use your developments without paying you for them.  If you take away that right then what's left.  NOTHING.  no one will invest if there is no guarantee they can make money from the investment. 

 

Quote

This is a huge impediment to progress. What if Intel demanded royalties for using x86 instructions in your program?

in what reality does that make any sense?  Writing a program that uses a process in a product is not a matter for IP or copyright.  The IP is the hardware execution, not the software that runs on it.  The compilers are copyrighted, because they are products.  Trying to argue you should pay a royalty for releasing a product compiled to run on x86 is as irrational as trying to argue you should pay a royalty for releasing a video rendered in adobe.

 

Quote

You'd have to either be able to afford them every time you want to write and distribute some software or go out and make your own CPU with blackjack and hookers, losing years of time and probably not reaching the same level of performance (even if you could afford to do it). Our progress cannot depend on the willingness of a handful of corporations or individuals to let us use their IP at a reasonable price when they themselves built it on things other people came up with and let them use for free. None of our modern technology would exist if everyone chose to strictly enforce their copyright. A law that destroys society if used legitimately to its full extent is a bad law.

No it is not an impediment.  Going back to the James watt example from earlier.  Many people claim he impeded development because of the patents he had.  Which is true to a degree, but the only reason anyone had his work to improve on was because he was able to secure investment because he was able to ensure only he had the right to his work.  Had his patent been rejected, Matthew Boulton would not have funded his business and the development of steam engines would have been delayed anyway.  The only difference is that with the patent and thus investment, an entire industry (which includes more employment, more taxes paid, more education, more domestic productivity) was set in action kicking the industrial revolution into high gear.

 

Quote

Also I want to point out that this does not contradict what I said in any way. I never said you can claim the original as yours. I said you can copyright the modified version as yours and not disclose the code, preventing anyone else from expanding on your work as you expanded on someone else's.

Yes you did:

 

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

 when in practice almost every new IP is based on preexisting concepts and ideas that the copyright holder didn't conceive, but was nonetheless able to use and claim as their exclusive property through even minor modifications.

and no you can't copyright the modified version, only the modified part.  I've said this several times now.

 

 

EDIT: just to be clear, you started this discussion by claiming that copyright law means someone can take your work and prevent others from using it. To which I pointed out that was not true (with evidence), you then tried to claim the only reason Linus holds the CR to Linux is to stop others owning it, that is also not true (pointed out the PD would adequately do that).  You have now tried to swing the conversation to many other abstractions about creative work and mathematics that are essentially moot and now you want to debate that you didn't make the claims you did.   

 

Firstly, CR is for the creator to either register or to take sufficient steps to be able to prove in a court, doing that prevents anyone from taking it.    Nuisance lawsuits and claims are not the exclusive domain of CR law and are not a flaw in CR law, they are a flaw in humanity.  Therefore demanding no one should have their work protected by CR because you don't understand how CR works or because others want to illegally claim works for themselves is both unfair and disadvantageous to society.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Numbers cannot be copyrighted so why even bring it up?

Uhm yes they can. What do you think a movie file is? What about a PDF? They're just really long numbers that a computer decodes into something we can see or read. If I shared with you a movie in base64 format, which is literally just a number, I'd still be breaching copyright.

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

in what reality does that make any sense?  Writing a program that uses a process in a product is not a matter for IP or copyright.  The IP is the hardware execution, not the software that runs on it.  The compilers are copyrighted, because they are products.  Trying to argue you should pay a royalty for releasing a product compiled to run on x86 is as irrational as trying to argue you should pay a royalty for releasing a video rendered in adobe.

Intel has a copyright on the instruction set, they're under no obligation to release the relevant documentation, they can stop you from partially implementing a compiler (see SUN v Microsoft for Java) and they can sell you their own compiler under whatever business model they choose. So while just writing a program may be allowed under those conditions, actually running it would be impossile without licensing the ability to do that from Intel.

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

and no you can't copyright the modified version, only the modified part.  I've said this several times now.

This is literally a ship of theseus argument. There's an arbitrary point where the entirety of the work is considered "modified" and therefore copyrightable. Where that point is is completely irrelevant because it is completely arbitrary.

Spoiler

Cuphead is just Mickey Mouse without short buttons and with a modified head. That doesn't mean the gloves are Disney's copyright just because they are "unmodified".

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Going back to the James watt example from earlier.  Many people claim he impeded development because of the patents he had.  Which is true to a degree, but the only reason anyone had his work to improve on was because he was able to secure investment because he was able to ensure only he had the right to his work.  Had his patent been rejected, Matthew Boulton would not have funded his business and the development of steam engines would have been delayed anyway.

Someone else would have done it shortly thereafter. Just because Watt got there first doesn't mean he was the only one capable of doing it. Plenty of things were independently invented by various people at around the same time. The only difference is that instead of Watt being able to personally profit from all the work other people did later to turn his ideas into a reality there would have been a fairer share for everyone involved. Besides, if he had had no need for secrecy (out of fear of someone patenting it first if they saw his work) he could have just collaborated with people and gotten funding through a joint effort.

 

With that said, I also think it's unfair to just expect people to come up with things and not getting paid unless they're hired to do it; that is why I think this type of research should be funded through universities and all people investing time into research should be granted a salary. This may have been unfeasible 200 years ago but it isn't now.

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which is exactly the point, his work is protected so you can't take it without paying for it.

All right, I invented the wheel^tm so now you need to pay me 10 billion dollars for each wheel you produce. Or what about this: I invented the wheel^tm and you, you specifically, can't use it for the next 30 years. Have fun making square wheeled bicycles while your competitors get to use my round wheel^tm.

 

Never mind the fact I didn't invent circles or the manufacturing processes I used to make it... if you make something round that spins it's a wheel^tm and it belongs to me.

52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

the number 76 is trademarked for an American fuel company and you can't use that number as a trademark for a fuel product.  They are not copy rights or patents and no one can sue you for using those colors or numbers unless you are breaching trademark laws. 

I've mentioned copyright but the exact same arguments apply to patents and trademarks. They're all bad in that they all seek to assign ownership of ideas.

[Mihle]

Patents and stuff are good, it drives innovation more than having nothing, but they last too long.

 

Patents might have had a fine length long time ago, but now that technology moves faster, it's too long.

[Mihle]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

Pretty sure it is. If something is not copyrighted you can just claim you made it. Hell, sometimes you can do it even if it IS copyrighted provided you have enough money and lawyers.

 

There's a reason Linux is copyrighted even though Torvalds has no interest in monetizing it - it's to prevent others from doing so.

In EU, when you create something personally (not for a company), you automatically have copyright by law, it's not something you have to "claim", don't know how it is other places tho.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, Mihle said:

In EU, when you create something personally (not for a company), you automatically have copyright by law, it's not something you have to "claim", don't know how it is other places tho.

By "claim" I mean "make it known that you made it". Can't really assign copyright if you don't know who made the thing.

[Mihle]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

By "claim" I mean "make it known that you made it". Can't really assign copyright if you don't know who made the thing.

If someone makes something and don't have proof they have made it, that's on the person that made it and not the copyright law. There is plenty of ways you can have prove it.

[Sauron]

Just now, Mihle said:

If someone makes something and don't have proof they have made it, that's on the person that made it and not the copyright law. There is plenty of ways you can have prove it.

I don't want anyone to own it.