Re: Mind's Eye Copy write

I agree with Vam. I'd be happy working with DOS and Lynx rather than
GUI. Most of this supposed innovation is no such thing. I have no
tablet. Amazon's kindle software is free and my laptop lets me see a
full page in a font I can read. My Tasword worked as well in 1983 as
Word 2010 (still used in menu format not the stupid ribbon thanks to
Ubit retro tech). Spreadsheets haven't moved much since I used them
in chemistry. Databases have got easier to use, but they aren't
changing debate to a more factual base. Instead we have 'cool toys'
that flog the usual garbage to us. FaceFlop just about covers it
all. If I get any more reactionary I'll soon be living in the same
century as Gabby!

On 30 Aug, 10:09, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I do not think Apple has won ,, as it was on false grounds and I
> think they will be caught, because they submitted a false claim before the
> courts..  Actually the US court system really does not approve of that type
> of action.. I t will be funny if the counter suit is brought by a common
> person a friend of the court.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In this interesting debate...
>
> > 1 Apple has won. The whole world has suffered a loss. It's something what
> > a Japaneses Quality maestro said in another context :
>
> > You will gain just a little by reducing quality. But a sea of customers
> > will each lose a mountain. The sheer contrast between the littleness of
> > gain and the immensity of loss makes it unworthy of our morals.
>
> > 2 The IPR is a technical thing.
> > What's a jury of lay people doing over it ?
> > It needs expert testimonies.
>
> > 3 But the clincher is what the "foreman" of the jury said :
> >  " We wanted to make it "painful" ( for Samsung )."
> > A clear giveaway... the verdict wasn't about law or merit.
> > It was emotional and punitive, not assess-ive and compensatory.
>
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:47:21 PM UTC+5:30, Allan Heretic wrote:
>
> >> Your parents were right to copy write you Gabby you are totally unique
> >> and original.
> >> Allan
>
> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM, gabbydott <gabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know, Don. My parents had the copyright on me and I don't see
> >>> how that has had an overall posive effect on their financial sucess.
> >>> And the patented right and obligation to raise me was definitely not a
> >>> pure joy and pleasure. And you know what, and don't even think that
> >>> this was their intention. That social blabla, that you pay your local
> >>> church for, was most likely the reason that made me survive.
>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > I think it's one of America's finest achievements replacing
> >>> > aristocracy with financial success as a mark of distinction. We can
> >>> > all aspire to the later but only a "precious" few can claim the
> >>> > former. You can thank George Washington. The man could have been king.
>
> >>> > Let us not forget how many people Apple employs, how much the
> >>> > corporation and their employees pay in taxes and all the taxes made
> >>> > from the sales of the equipment they innovated. Lets not forget the
> >>> > many, many jobs poor folks in China have due to Apple's manufacturing
> >>> > plant there. And what, pray tell, is wrong with creating new markets?
> >>> > At least apple's products are actually useful unlike a certain tulip
> >>> > that used to bring a pretty penny hey?
>
> >>> > I am a Consumer and will continue to be until the day I die and even
> >>> > after. I'll have to be planted/burned up and the funeral home will
> >>> > make a big fuss(for a fee) and the newspaper will have a little
> >>> > blurb(for a fee) and so on so forth. As it should be. Why cry about
> >>> > it? Trade in goods and services are what makes humans so successful as
> >>> > a species. Our ability to work together. Without it we would still be
> >>> > the savages we no doubt are descendent from.
>
> >>> > As for the patents my understand is that they are for the technology
> >>> > involved in how the tablet responds to digital manipulation on the
> >>> > screen. If Moses had a tablet like that I'm damn impressed and if it
> >>> > can be proven I'll reevaluate my entire stand on this God thing. I
> >>> > mean, I can explain a burning bush with lightening but a touch screen
> >>> > in 1441 BC requires some deity assistance wouldn't you say? Or maybe
> >>> > time travel...
>
> >>> > I have this image of Steve Jobs busting tablets when he comes down off
> >>> > the mountain and catches his flock building false images. You
> >>> > know.................Android.
>
> >>> > Really like the "clutters the caverns of commerce" line Rigsy. I
> >>> > couldn't agree with you more. Although the gothic cathedrals are a
> >>> > little too big and overbearing(intended) for my tastes I'm more of a
> >>> > Howard Roark(aka Frank Lloyd Wright) kind of man.
>
> >>> > dj
>
> >>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> I don't doubt we need some process to help innovation along.  I no
> >>> >> doubt asset rights to my novel and day-job productions of academic
> >>> >> programmes.  Molly is welcome to hers.  Newsnight discussed the issue
> >>> >> around the quote rigsy comes up with above.  The problem is when the
> >>> >> process establishes unnecessary economic rents.
>
> >>> >> On 28 Aug, 15:33, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> You are right Molly,  Apple did go though the government process for
> >>> both a
> >>> >>> patent and copyrights,,  but typical of lawyers they lie via
> >>> ommision..
> >>> >>>   the slate board was never patented either in the US or world wide
> >>> so in
> >>> >>> their searches they can claim they never found it..
>
> >>> >>> In a way they are telling the truth ant the same time lying .. You
> >>> have a
> >>> >>> automatic copy write  and if you put a copy of your work in a
> >>> >>> sealed envelope then mail it to yourself  as long as the envelope is
> >>> you
> >>> >>> have proof of date of origin..  you do not have to go though the
> >>> copy write
> >>> >>> process.
>
> >>> >>> When the design argument comes up a slate tablet from the 17th or
> >>> 18th or
> >>> >>> early 19th century would proof of original creation.  and invalid
> >>> that part
> >>> >>> of the copy write claim.  Today the world is about bullshit and high
> >>> priced
> >>> >>> lawyers.  A simple slate tablet showing up in the court room would
> >>> >>> invalidate their claim..  but then the lawyers would not get rich
> >>> over it..
>
> >>> >>> Now my opinion..  the lawyers should have to contribute twice there
> >>> fees,,
> >>> >>> and the corporations twice their damage claims to one of the world
> >>> hunger
> >>> >>> funds run by the UN.. I bet that would stop these petty arguments and
> >>> >>> wasting courts time. It would benefit the world
> >>> >>> Allan
>
> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> > I do think one has the right to protect ideas and inventions- it
> >>> is a
> >>> >>> > work product. However, it is a lively topic when we include absurd
> >>> >>> > profits and monopoly. True, creators of the past were content to
> >>> >>> > contribute freely- even anonymously- but we see how the reward
> >>> system
> >>> >>> > has changed- mostly with capitalism- but also with wars and
> >>> conquests.
> >>> >>> > I think much of the American problem can also be traced to the fact
> >>> >>> > that we lack aristocratic lineage to brag about so we substitute
> >>> >>> > merchandise as a mark of our status.
>
> >>> >>> > On Aug 28, 6:19 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> > > As I understand it, the the first step to patent, trademark or
> >>> >>> > > copyright is a search to make sure the submission is
> >>> originalhttp://
> >>> >>> >www.uspto.gov/patents/**process/index.jsp<http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp>
> >>> >>> > > If the government issues the patent, it has survived these
> >>> rigors,
> >>> >>> > > meaning, their records indicate the submission does not violate
> >>> any
> >>> >>> > > previously issued patent.  The same goes for copyright.  My
> >>> essays
> >>> >>> > > always take much longer to copyright than my fiction, and I am
> >>> told by
> >>> >>> > > the Office of Copyright, that this is because of the initial
> >>> search
> >>> >>> > > process.
>
> >>> >>> > > I have the feeling that the current owners of the Mona Lisa or
> >>> the
> >>> >>> > > estate da Vinci have that all tied up or should, but artwork, I
> >>> am
> >>> >>> > > sure, has a different life span for copyright than a patent
> >>> would for
> >>> >>> > > an invention.  These certifications expire and must be re -
> >>> applied
> >>> >>> > > for after a term.
>
> >>> >>> > > I am not here to argue any side, and my only opinion is that it
> >>> makes
> >>> >>> > > for an interesting side show.  I for one, am glad that I can
> >>> write,
> >>> >>> > > and hold copyrights.  And that intellectual property laws
> >>> protect my
> >>> >>> > > work and livelihood to some degree.  These certifications didn't
> >>> much
> >>> >>> > > help Tesla, but I don't think he cared enough to pursue
> >>> infringement
> >>> >>> > > cases.  I am not sure I do either.
>
> >>> >>> > > On Aug 28, 3:47 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >>> > > > Molly what you are saying about the patent office  to vary it a
> >>> >>> > little,, is
> >>> >>> > > > I am allowed to copy the Mona Lisa , put my name on it ,, then
> >>> copy
> >>> >>> > write
> >>> >>> > > > it, then I control the design of any one wanting to reproduce
> >>> it in any
> >>> >>> > > > form I can sue. Apple has stolen from our history
> >>> intentionally  and is
> >>> >>> > > > trying to deceive the public. the shape and design belongs to
> >>> the
> >>> >>> > entire
> >>> >>> > > > world and any one is allowed to use it.
> >>> >>> > > > Allan
>
> >>> >>> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > > > > Yes that is true Molly  but the slate Table existed long
> >>> before copy
> >>> >>> > > > > writes existed.  For this reason alone the design can not be
> >>> a copy
> >>> >>> > write.
> >>> >>> > > > >  Apple already had lost that argument in England and Apple
> >>> has to
> >>> >>> > publish
> >>> >>> > > > >  written that Samsung  that were did not violate its copy
> >>> writes.
>
> >>> >>> > > > > All apple did was go though items that were copy writed to
> >>> save
> >>> >>> > time..
> >>> >>> > > > >  and they know that the the slate tablet existed long
> >>> before,,  I
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--