Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

soph · 2003-03-13 21:56:13

If there are people who have found their little niche somewhere, and they've thrown out the idea that people should be slaves to one another and share technology, knowledge and resources, what would you do? Would you rightly leave them alone, and let them do their thing, or would you force them to become your slave or whatever, because for some reason you need to be ?more productive? (and you think that you deserve to be able to control people)?

Under capitalism, as long as they can support themselves by providing a service in sufficient demand by society, they are left alone.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 23:31:36

Under capitalism, as long as they can support themselves by providing a service in sufficient demand by society, they are left alone.

Yes, I'm certain that as technology gets better, capitalism (at least democratic capitalism) will be unable to stop those using it from using it in an anarchistic manner, sharing it with one another. At first, of course, they will undoubtedly try to stop it in some way. Just look at DRM.

Before you were talking about how patents shouldn't cover research. Well, that's not how it is. These days one can patent a mere idea. For example, Apple recently patened the idea that devices could change color and patterns via user input. In other words, they ?reinvented? the mere concept of the mood ring, and that's it. They don't even have an implementation, they just have an idea (one which I came up with when I was probably 15, and hundreds of people surely imagined up- it's not a radical idea to be quite honest).

That's like me patenting the idea of Venusian blimps. Not a certain degisn, but all blimps that float in the atmosphere of Venus. The idea. So no matter how much research other people do, if it involves Venusian blimps, the end result would require licensing or whatever from me.

Fortunately though, we have relatively sane judges (thanks to Clinton) who look at these sort of ?idea patents? and take them with a grain of salt. You can't patent linking... man, what a ridiculous and disingenous attempt to make money.

Capitalisms greatest weakness is being strong.

AltToWar · 2003-03-20 20:07:05

The first thing anarchists do is form a committee.

soph · 2003-03-20 20:16:51

Before you were talking about how patents shouldn't cover research. Well, that's not how it is. These days one can patent a mere idea. For example, Apple recently patened the idea that devices could change color and patterns via user input.

You mean, kind of, sort of, like Windows Plus themes?

And we have these things called think tanks, where the research is public, but the applications are liscensed. Kind of like OSes.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 20:25:26

Heh, heh, AltToWar.

Sure, like themes, but for handheld devices. I can get the Slashdot article for you, there was a lot of hooplah about it.

soph · 2003-03-20 20:41:34

They can't ban Microsoft from using it, because Microsoft has been using themes for over a decade.

I'd like to see the article, but my guess is that the extent of the patent is being overstated.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 20:47:15

Eh, well, you have to read the article.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article....=thread

soph · 2003-03-20 20:57:13

Secret300 writes "Apple is applying for a patent to release "devices capable of dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance." If this is a success, it would considerably boost Apple's presence in the technology world." So, perhaps we can not only theme our desktop on the machine - but our *literal* desktop.

Yeah, so? They're applying for a patent on a specific application.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:12:52

Yeah, so, if I invented a way to do that too, would it be wrong of me sell that invention?

soph · 2003-03-20 21:16:46

Nope. Unless somebody did it first, and has patented it.

However, if your invention is unique, and different/more efficient/cheaper, etc. than the orignial, sure.

My friend just put together a cheap PCR machine (genetic replication, i.e. replicates specific sequences), which doesn't violate any inventions, because it is a different design, which is much cheaper.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:23:42

Good, then, we're in agreement. Ideas can't be owned. Apple, as far as I can tell, is patenting an idea, though. There's nothing in there, as far as I can tell, about a specific way to implement their idea.

And I honestly don't see how they'd be able to implement it without there being some prior art on the idea. Unless they invent a new color changing material.

soph · 2003-03-20 21:29:22

Good, then, we're in agreement. Ideas can't be owned. Apple, as far as I can tell, is patenting an idea, though. There's nothing in there, as far as I can tell, about a specific way to implement their idea.
And I honestly don't see how they'd be able to implement it without there being some prior art on the idea. Unless they invent a new color changing material.

"Apple is applying for a patent to release "devices capable of dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance."

Erm, I think you're misinterpreting the article-the application is specific devices, not the idea.

But, yes, I agree, ideas can't be patented. A person can, if he wants, use them for profit (i.e. teach somebody the idea), but the knowledge cannot be "property" of only that person.

That's not to say he can't choose to keep it to himself.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-20 21:32:31

Erm, I think you're misinterpreting the article-the application is specific devices, not the idea.

No, it's bascaically shining a light through the case, as far as I can tell, like those stupid cell phones.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 20:28:15

So basically, unless you can come up with another way of shining a light through a case, Apple owns the right to the idea of shining a light through a case. Fortunately for innovators, they will probably have room to maneuver, but that isn't always the case.

So soph, have you read the Anarchist FAQ, or not? I'm just curious, because you seem to be so ?right? about everything these days, I'd just like to see your rebuttals to their convincing arguments.

soph · 2003-03-24 20:43:29

No, they own the right to that particular design. You see, AT&T, Ericcson, Nokia-they all own the right to shine light through a case. They didn't patent the idea, only the application.

So soph, have you read the Anarchist FAQ, or not? I'm just curious, because you seem to be so ?right? about everything these days, I'd just like to see your rebuttals to their convincing arguments.

I read them a while ago. Nothing that had any real value in economics. Noble ideals, but no capacity in reality.

Sorry, Josh, the world seems to agree with me.

I'm done discussing this topic. It's really a dead issue, as the world has made its decision and isnt about to change its mind anytime soon. It's fairly clear which systems will find their way into space, and which will fade into the pages of history books.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 23:15:21

No, they own the right to that particular design.

The ?particular design? is an LED, soph. All it is is an LED...

You see, AT&T, Ericcson, Nokia-they all own the right to shine light through a case.

Sure, but AT&T, Ericcson, Nokia all don't have the extra bit determining user input. So... in review. All it is is an LED... with user input.

I read them a while ago. Nothing that had any real value in economics. Noble ideals, but no capacity in reality.

Very good refutation, soph! I'm totally blown away, I wouldn't even know where to begin! My whole outlook is changed. I am totally flabergasted. You have truely shown me the light.

Sorry, Josh, the world seems to agree with me.

Where does the world ?disagree with me??

I'm done discussing this topic.

It's really a dead issue, as the world has made its decision and isnt about to change its mind anytime soon.

You're absolutely right, the world has shown that the systems which work best are those which have very long term planning. An idea which goes against many tenents of capitalism. Profit first.

It's fairly clear which systems will find their way into space, and which will fade into the pages of history books.

It should be, by now. I'll let you pretend your favored system is the one, though.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 00:42:55

The thread about Libertarianism prompted me to read up about ?natural laws.? I came across a very nice essay on the subject. Too bad I didn't do this awhile ago when A.J. was spewing ?Natural Law? arguments.

http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/c … 001283.txt

Palomar · 2003-10-01 12:53:38

This should prove interesting to watch...

*Especial good luck to folks who've lived there a long time, with roots to NH...they've got some changes to deal with.

But I have a hunch a certain governor's head might roll...

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-10-01 13:29:41

This should prove interesting to watch...
*Especial good luck to folks who've lived there a long time, with roots to NH...they've got some changes to deal with.
But I have a hunch a certain governor's head might roll...
--Cindy

Hmm...interesting. It'd be pretty cool if they could really pull that off. Maybe it would shake the political establishment a bit..lol.

I just want to add a comment about government...which seems to be afflicted by a "stupidity" plague as of late...

I just had lunch with a friend in downtown Ft. Lauderdale, which I had mentioned before about the city government experiencing a "budgetary crisis" lately. One of their most recent actions to raise cash was to dramatically increase parking charges throughout the downtown area. How wonderful it is to see the laws of supply and demand work in their full glory! Finding parking downtown used to be problematic at times...the low rates induced people to come downtown and participate in such activities as shopping, eating, bar-hopping, and so forth....all of which the pols have been trying to get people to do for years, as part of their grand scheme to make the downtown a "24-hour" city.

Curiously, with the vastly increased parking rates (along with draconian enforcement of parking "scofflaws"), parking has all of a sudden become much, much easier to find these days. The difference really is quite dramatic. People just don't carry enough change with them to keep those greedy meters happy, so they're obviously not bothering to come downtown anymore. So the city is probably getting less revenue, not more, from the parking system, and the businesses down there, who have already been struggling since 9-11, are surely feeling the effects...at this rate, it won't be long before many of them just shut their doors from the lack of customers. So tell me, how will this effect the City of Ft. Lauderdale? Dead businesses don't generate property taxes, so next year at budget time, they will have even less money than before...and all because of a stupid thing like high parking fees... ??? Not to mention they've cut the police force, which will surely scare away the lucrative nighttime crowd, if it hasn't done so already.

Why can't people see the result of such blatantly short-sighted policies? It defies all logic...it really does. Looking at the overall picture, I just cannot see how they can be pumping up the city budget by over ten percent from last year to this year, and yet be flat-out broke... Higher taxes = less in the way of services. <--shakes head in disbelief-->

In short, people need to get involved in politics. Without the will of the people for common-sense policies, change will never happen. Since it's been a while since I've had a letter published in the Sun-Sentinal, I think I will write a letter explaining the obvious...maybe this will cause *somebody* to wake up and smell the coffee...

B

clark · 2003-10-01 14:05:07

The man calling for Universal Health Care decrying local government for being wasteful and ineffecient!?

Whose side are you on anyway? :laugh:

Looking at the overall picture, I just cannot see how they can be pumping up the city budget by over ten percent from last year to this year, and yet be flat-out broke...

Could it be that they have to pay more for emergency services related to the post 9/11 atmosphere? Everytime we go to Orange, or whatever it is, it costs cities and counties millions becuase they have to go on a heightened state of alert. The federal government has been rather remiss in refunding or defraying the cost of "Threat Level: Orange". (Beware beware, the oranges are coming the oranges are coming...)

All that said, i never understood the need for stringent parking enforcement- but I guess in high urban density places, it does become an issue of saftey...if not profit.

Byron · 2003-10-01 14:25:42

Whose side are you on anyway?

I'm with whoever is costing me the least amount of money at the moment..lol

B

clark · 2003-10-01 14:29:38

I'm on whoever's costing me the least amount of money at the moment..lol

Your statement as is might make one wonder if you are in Nevada...

But, i will stop, lest we derail the thread.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-01 15:17:35

Heh, the Free State people aren't anarchists, though some professed anarchists do live within it. It's more like Galts Gulch or whatever that place was in Atlas Shrugged. It'll be interesting to see how it fares.

Also, 'universial health care' can actually be seen as a 'local' phenomena. As an example, Cuba has one doctor for every few hundred people, so literally every city block has a doctor which can help out those within the local atmosphere. It's also cheaper from a scale perspective; think of it working as small familes, each with an individual family doctor. With more supply, is less demand, and also, less cost.

If I had access to medical equipment, I could do self checkups; self empowerment, independence, etc.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-03-13 21:56:13

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#102 2003-03-13 23:31:36

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#103 2003-03-20 20:07:05

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#104 2003-03-20 20:16:51

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#105 2003-03-20 20:25:26

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#106 2003-03-20 20:41:34

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#107 2003-03-20 20:47:15

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#108 2003-03-20 20:57:13

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#109 2003-03-20 21:12:52

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#110 2003-03-20 21:16:46

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#111 2003-03-20 21:23:42

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#112 2003-03-20 21:29:22

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#113 2003-03-20 21:32:31

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#114 2003-03-24 20:28:15

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#115 2003-03-24 20:43:29

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#116 2003-03-24 23:15:21

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#117 2003-03-27 00:42:55

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#118 2003-10-01 12:53:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#119 2003-10-01 13:29:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#120 2003-10-01 14:05:07

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#121 2003-10-01 14:25:42

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#122 2003-10-01 14:29:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#123 2003-10-01 15:17:35

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Board footer