Clarification of OS "advancement"

java-programmer, Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jorn W Janneck say:
>>>>>>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> It is, on the face of it, impossible, what he says. Businesses do
>>>>>>>>>> not and should not spend money on things without expecting to own
>>>>>>>>>> them once they do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>eclipse-ibm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about it? [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think he means Eclipse refutes the idea you expressed above - that
>>>>>>>businesses do not and should not spend money on things without expecting
>>>>>>>to own them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>IBM has invested a lot of money in Eclipse - but it doesn't own it.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>That wasn't the thesis you presented above. What you wrote was:
>>>>>
>>>>>``Businesses do not and should not spend money on things without
>>>>> expecting to own them once they do.''
>>>>>
>>>>>A simple counter-example neatly dispenses with that thesis.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid not. It would be nice if an /apparent/ counter-example, however
>>>> simple, could refute economic truth. Or maybe it wouldn't be.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, your counter-thesis would have to be "businesses should spend
>>>> money on things without expecting to own them once they do", which is
>>>> clearly preposterous.
>>>
>>>You seem to be experiencing some difficulty with inverting a thesis.
>>>
>>>The opposite of "do not and should not" is not "should" - it is:
>>>"do or are not morally prohibited from".
>>
>> Yea, sure.
>
>Try it on for size.
>
>Your own argument leads to a conclusion which is anything but preposterous
>if you use valid forms of reasoning.

My statement was true. That you can extend it to absurd lengths by pretending
it is a mathematical claim and then find it lacking because it is not is a
problem for you, not for me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jorn W Janneck say:
>>>>>>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> It is, on the face of it, impossible, what he says. Businesses do
>>>>>>>>>> not and should not spend money on things without expecting to own
>>>>>>>>>> them once they do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>eclipse-ibm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about it? [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think he means Eclipse refutes the idea you expressed above - that
>>>>>>>businesses do not and should not spend money on things without expecting
>>>>>>>to own them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>IBM has invested a lot of money in Eclipse - but it doesn't own it.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>That wasn't the thesis you presented above. What you wrote was:
>>>>>
>>>>>``Businesses do not and should not spend money on things without
>>>>> expecting to own them once they do.''
>>>>>
>>>>>A simple counter-example neatly dispenses with that thesis.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid not. It would be nice if an /apparent/ counter-example, however
>>>> simple, could refute economic truth. Or maybe it wouldn't be.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, your counter-thesis would have to be "businesses should spend
>>>> money on things without expecting to own them once they do", which is
>>>> clearly preposterous.
>>>
>>>You seem to be experiencing some difficulty with inverting a thesis.
>>>
>>>The opposite of "do not and should not" is not "should" - it is:
>>>"do or are not morally prohibited from".
>>
>> Yea, sure.
>
>Try it on for size.
>
>Your own argument leads to a conclusion which is anything but preposterous
>if you use valid forms of reasoning.

My statement was true. That you can extend it to absurd lengths by pretending
it is a mathematical claim and then find it lacking because it is not is a
problem for you, not for me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Otis Bricker say:
>>T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote in

>>> Whatever. You aren't really interested in this discussion, you're
>>> just quibbling about the wording I used three posts ago.
>>
>>I just don't understand your point.
>
> I don't see why. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
> them once they do. The same can be said for people.

It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
really thinks this.

What about heating, lighting, rent on business premises, policing,
leasing of tools, consulting, solicitors, accountants and lawyers?

It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
up owning them.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Otis Bricker say:
>>>T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote in
>
>>>> Whatever. You aren't really interested in this discussion, you're
>>>> just quibbling about the wording I used three posts ago.
>>>
>>>I just don't understand your point.
>>
>> I don't see why. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
>> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
>> them once they do. The same can be said for people.
>
>It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
>really thinks this.

You are obviously posturing. It is difficult to believe that business don't
spend money for no reason?

>What about heating, lighting, rent on business premises, policing,
>leasing of tools, consulting, solicitors, accountants and lawyers?

See; you're just avoiding the point on purpose.

>It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
>up owning them.

Not things that they would expect to own once they paid for them, no.

It is unfortunate that my statement is not a mathematical equation, meaning it
is possible for you to misinterpret or over-extend it. That doesn't make
doing so a reasonable argument against the claim.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:email***@***.com:

<SNIP>

>>Almost everyone I know familiar with it
>>associates Eclipse with IBM. They don't think it is an IBM product but
>>they do think about IBM when they think about Eclipse. So an
>>ADDITIONAL value to contributing to the project has been advertising.
>
> That's fine. But it isn't the point. The point is that owning GPL
> software is still owning it, even if you are barred from certain
> benefits of ownership by the terms of the GPL.
>

OK, I didn;t see this phrasing in your original statement about not
investing in things you do not expect to own.

I do agree that owning GPL software is still ownership. Not much of a
consession I think.

>>Companies do invest int things that they will not own.
>
> Not usually, no. They contribute to charities and industry groups,
> sure. They pay for services. They can pay for a lease instead of
> owning the equipment. But then they own the lease.
>
>>It seems that you
>>believe that companies behave in ways that they know are contrary to
>>their own interests.
>
> Actually, that is precisely the argument against your position. You
> are saying that companies behave in ways that are contrary to their
> own interests. And, indeed, in a monopolized market (or one affected
> by a monopolized market), they often have no alternative.
>

No. I simply am not assuming that ownership is the sole measure of
valuation.

Monopolies exist. They are part of the natural evolution of some markets.
I don't consider this a distortion. At least not in the general case.
Monopolies can distort markets. They are just not required to do so.

>>I believe that companies generally try to act logicallly and
>>in their own best interest. Or at least in what they see as their best
>>interest.
>
> That's just what I said, but you are arguing against that position.
> Probably because you don't agree that paying for something that you
> won't then own is logical or automatically in their own best interest.
>

I don't think I am arguing against this. I do think that paying to own
something is logical. At least if the amount paid is less than or equal
to the value I place on it. But I can see the possiblity of value in
developing items I will not own.

I might develop a standard for information exchange and donate it to the
public so that I will profit from controlling the media of exchange. If I
'owned' the Internet and billed based on bandwidth use, It would be in my
interest to make it as easy as possible for people to use bandwidth.
Realizing that I cannot produce all the possible software that could use
it, I make the protocol public and watch the cash flow in from sources I
never even thought of.

I am not saying that it is always right for every business to give away
the fruits of their labor. Just that sometimes it is in their best
interests to give up some of them.

>>I did not intend to quibble. But you are right, I am no longer
>>interested in trying to discuss this with you. You seem intent on
>>ignoring others points. Though it is possible that we just aren't
>>making them well enough.
>
> It is also possible I haven't ignored your points, but refuted them,
> and you just don't want to re-consider your position.

If you have refuted anything, I missed that too. But I will not deny the
possiblity. SO I give. Go ahead and claim victory in a reply that adds
even less to our understanding of your view.

Otis

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:

>>> It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
>>> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
>>> them once they do. The same can be said for people.
>>
>>It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
>>really thinks this.
>
> You are obviously posturing. It is difficult to believe that business don't
> spend money for no reason?

Business tend not to spend money for no reason - but they *do* spend
money on things that don't expect to wind up owning.

>>It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
>>up owning them.
>
> Not things that they would expect to own once they paid for them, no.

No, *not* those things - but other things that they *don't* expect to
wind up owning - such as business services, things they rent - and
contributions to open-source software projects.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>
>>>> It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
>>>> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
>>>> them once they do. The same can be said for people.
>>>
>>>It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
>>>really thinks this.
>>
>> You are obviously posturing. It is difficult to believe that business don't
>> spend money for no reason?
>
>Business tend not to spend money for no reason - but they *do* spend
>money on things that don't expect to wind up owning.

Not true. I've already pointed out your major error; GPL software is owned.
Your minor error is in not realizing that this is because software is
something they should expect to own, just like any other intellectual
property, but because the free market in PC software is non-existent thanks to
the gentle ministrations of some dick who got monopoly power and never let go
of it, they find it more economical to do what is least efficient; pay to
build something they cannot then gain all the benefits of ownership from.

>>>It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
>>>up owning them.
>>
>> Not things that they would expect to own once they paid for them, no.
>
>No, *not* those things - but other things that they *don't* expect to
>wind up owning - such as business services, things they rent - and
>contributions to open-source software projects.

Charitable contributions are PR, not business expenses. They're common today
as a show of faith, but once the monopoly goes away so does any real reason to
buy something you can't own.

You're trying to jump from 'funding free software projects is a good idea', a
sentiment I honestly have nothing against, to 'intellectual property should
not exist; information should not be owned', which was the premise the
discussion started with.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Otis Bricker say:
>T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote in
>news:email***@***.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>>Almost everyone I know familiar with it
>>>associates Eclipse with IBM. They don't think it is an IBM product but
>>>they do think about IBM when they think about Eclipse. So an
>>>ADDITIONAL value to contributing to the project has been advertising.
>>
>> That's fine. But it isn't the point. The point is that owning GPL
>> software is still owning it, even if you are barred from certain
>> benefits of ownership by the terms of the GPL.
>
>OK, I didn;t see this phrasing in your original statement about not
>investing in things you do not expect to own.

It isn't about the phrasing; it is about the context of the statement, which
was a discussion of whether all internally developed software should be
"unowned". I took that to mean that it should not be considered intellectual
property, but Phil might have meant that it should be GPL by default, though I
guess he didn't stick around long enough to clarify. Both models have been
discussed, I think, and I've tried to make a cogent argument for the status
quo. Because there really isn't anything wrong with the status quo, other
than the monopoly, and neither change would do any better at preventing
restraint of trade. Come to think of it, they would both increase restraint
of trade, in that any scrap of code you kept secret would qualify.

I can understand the position that believes that this is already so, that
keeping any scrap of code secret so that you can license it instead of either
selling it (like a song) or giving it away (like a pirated song). I find the
position attractive, in fact, which is why I've tried to keep the discussion
going (though honestly I haven't done near as well as you guys.) But the
truth is that there is more and better software written if there is a free
market. A free market /in software/. Not just in 'the services'. I don't
want to hire someone to run my computer, I want to buy a package to do it.
And that requires capitalistic competition to do well. An "all software is an
academic exercise" world is attractive only to those who enjoy software as an
academic exercise. There is nothing wrong with expecting that someone who
pays for something owns it, and if you pay someone to develop software, YOU
HAVE THE RIGHT, you must have the right, you should have the right, to keep it
secret so you can sell licenses to it. But ONLY in a completely free market
will it turn out that there isn't any efficiency in secrecy; it is easier just
to sell copies of it. If piracy is a problem then the law is on your side.
Otherwise, IP works on the honor system. Thereby providing all of the
benefits of the 'business should pay for things they can't own' crowd without
all the overwhelming problems any of their potential reforms would cause.

>I do agree that owning GPL software is still ownership. Not much of a
>consession I think.

It is an important one in many ways. But to be honest, the inability to
benefit from that ownership substantially in most cases makes the point
pedantic. But it illustrates the broader issue that prompted my concerns
about what Phil had said. It indicates to me that in many ways the growth of
open source projects themselves are more a reaction to the monopoly than a
reaction to the market. I can't think of anything else that would so affect a
market that a business would pay to have something built without any ability
to benefit from owning it.

>>>Companies do invest int things that they will not own.
>>
>> Not usually, no. They contribute to charities and industry groups,
>> sure. They pay for services. They can pay for a lease instead of
>> owning the equipment. But then they own the lease.
>>
>>>It seems that you
>>>believe that companies behave in ways that they know are contrary to
>>>their own interests.
>>
>> Actually, that is precisely the argument against your position. You
>> are saying that companies behave in ways that are contrary to their
>> own interests. And, indeed, in a monopolized market (or one affected
>> by a monopolized market), they often have no alternative.
>
>No. I simply am not assuming that ownership is the sole measure of
>valuation.

It quite certainly is, in the legal and economic sense in which it is being
used here.

>Monopolies exist.

As far as I know, a monopoly exists. It is called either Microsoft or
Windows, depending on the context.

>They are part of the natural evolution of some markets.

Not so. They are possible in many markets, they are inevitable in none, and
they are not natural to markets, but to mankind. Humans are capable of
behaving unethically. Markets are not.

>I don't consider this a distortion.

I consider it an over-extension. Because an economist can claim a monopoly
can 'naturally evolve' doesn't mean it can ever exist in the real world
without unethical behavior being the cause of it.

>At least not in the general case.
>Monopolies can distort markets. They are just not required to do so.

They most certainly are. Their very existence requires them to. One could
consider monopolies to only exist as the distortion of markets, by unethical
behavior resulting in restraint of trade. That Senator Sherman guy sure was
brilliant, whoever he was. A pity no modern day Republican can approach his
example.

>>>I believe that companies generally try to act logicallly and
>>>in their own best interest. Or at least in what they see as their best
>>>interest.
>>
>> That's just what I said, but you are arguing against that position.
>> Probably because you don't agree that paying for something that you
>> won't then own is logical or automatically in their own best interest.
>
>I don't think I am arguing against this. I do think that paying to own
>something is logical. At least if the amount paid is less than or equal
>to the value I place on it. But I can see the possiblity of value in
>developing items I will not own.

So can I. The part you weren't arguing against is the only part I was arguing
for. But, yeah really, I think businesses that fund open source projects are
acting irrationally. Because they are acting morally. It might seem a
wonderful thing to some people, but to me it is an abomination. Businesses
are supposed to act amorally, and that's the only way any of us get the good
goods in the kind of volumes and varieties we have become so used to.

>I might develop a standard for information exchange and donate it to the
>public so that I will profit from controlling the media of exchange.

Well, that is only true if you call any scrap of code someone writes "a
standard for information exchange". If you mean a real one, a valuable one, I
can only thank you, and ask you if you'd like to do it again. Never give a
sucker an even break.

Now, if you were to get together with others in the industry and become an
Internet Engineering Task Force Working Group, and develop an /actual standard
for information exchange/, then, well, shit, I'll help. I've done it before.
It can be fun, and it can be a hassle, but like any volunteer work, it is more
about individuals (how much you contribute) then businesses (how much you get
paid to contribute).

>If I
>'owned' the Internet and billed based on bandwidth use, It would be in my
>interest to make it as easy as possible for people to use bandwidth.

If you owned the Internet, you couldn't bill by bandwidth use. The Internet
doesn't have bandwidth. My point is not to ridicule your knowledge of
technology. My point is that the only reason your ideas make sense is because
they're not very precise.

>Realizing that I cannot produce all the possible software that could use
>it, I make the protocol public and watch the cash flow in from sources I
>never even thought of.

Now you're just drifting in fantasy-land. Honestly, you won't learn anything
about the real world doing that the way you are. You're trying to make an
'enlightened self-interest' case against monopolization. The problem is,
monopolization pays cash, and lots of it. You have to qualify 'enlightened'
in order to prevent monopolization. And doing it emotionally is not the
proper way. John Sherman knew that the way to do it was to look at economics.
Restraint of trade makes for more trade when reasonable (thereby not really
restraining trade), and less trade when unreasonable (thereby actually being
restraint of trade.) Not surprising it is a difficult abstraction to grasp,
but with my take (which you've just read) and Sherman's (which is 'contracts
in restraint of trade are a felony') and the Supreme Court that had to
interpret Sherman ('unreasonable restraint of trade is the restraint of trade
which is outlawed') maybe you can noodle it out.

>I am not saying that it is always right for every business to give away
>the fruits of their labor.

Then you've lost the argument, but perhaps you've learned something, just like
me. ;-)

>Just that sometimes it is in their best
>interests to give up some of them.

I'm not a fan of weasle-words like "sometimes" when discussing abstractions.
They do not and should not, though sometimes they appear to and maybe should
depending on your perspective. Guffaw.

>>>I did not intend to quibble. But you are right, I am no longer
>>>interested in trying to discuss this with you. You seem intent on
>>>ignoring others points. Though it is possible that we just aren't
>>>making them well enough.
>>
>> It is also possible I haven't ignored your points, but refuted them,
>> and you just don't want to re-consider your position.
>
>If you have refuted anything, I missed that too.

Well, if you go back over it a few times, maybe you'll pick up on it. That's
the beauty of text, you know? The text never changes, just the context.

>But I will not deny the
>possiblity. SO I give. Go ahead and claim victory in a reply that adds
>even less to our understanding of your view.

You've obviously mistaken me for someone else.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" Your whole argument falls apart rapidly when you look up for a moment.

Businesses cheerfully pay for lots of things they cannot "own", from
clean floors to emptied dumpsters. The premier example, though, is
probably employee training; I can take a class, and on two weeks notice
take the knowledge my boss paid for me to acquire, to another employer,
or go into business myself in competition with my former employer.

There is no way, since slavery was outlawed, for an employer to "own"
the experience and training which that employer paid good money to
assure resides in my head.

Thus, there is a *strong* sense in which intellectual property simply
isn't the same as other property, which has merely become profoundly
evident, not changed in kind, as costs of replication have become
trivial compared to the base cost what is being replicated, and
continuing to insist that intellectual property has the same status as
property whose replication is still costly, is kind of silly, wouldn't
you agree?

xanthian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Kent Paul Dolan say:
>Your whole argument falls apart rapidly when you look up for a moment.

I really wish that were true. If I could suddenly realize that my
understanding were false, though, I'd need something better to fill the void.

>Businesses cheerfully pay for lots of things they cannot "own", from
>clean floors to emptied dumpsters.

So apparently those weren't the things they (and we) pay for, which we then
expect to own because we've done so.

>The premier example, though, is
>probably employee training; I can take a class, and on two weeks notice
>take the knowledge my boss paid for me to acquire, to another employer,
>or go into business myself in competition with my former employer.

How long have you been in such a position? You haven't yet encountered an
employer that requires you to provide them compensation if you leave soon
after valuable training, or that you not leave during such a period at all?
These things are very very common in situations that they often occur. I've
been in such situations. Have you?

>There is no way, since slavery was outlawed, for an employer to "own"
>the experience and training which that employer paid good money to
>assure resides in my head.

Non-competes and other exclusivity clauses are contentious, yes. But they
exist because often enough they are enforceable, or at least unopposed.

>Thus, there is a *strong* sense in which intellectual property simply
>isn't the same as other property,

Their mistake. More and more common when the most important technology in the
last thirty years has been hampered by monopolization.

>which has merely become profoundly
>evident, not changed in kind, as costs of replication have become
>trivial compared to the base cost what is being replicated, and
>continuing to insist that intellectual property has the same status as
>property whose replication is still costly, is kind of silly, wouldn't
>you agree?

For music videos, yes. For software, no. I'm kinda surprised, once it's put
that way, but I still believe, even after Microsoft's criminal activities have
cost everyone billions of dollars, that it isn't the ability to use an EULA to
get profit from a trade secret that is evil, it is just monopolizing, using
that or any other trick.

Software is just a sequence of mathematical codes (music is too, but it isn't
intended to be one.) There are two alternate and generally exclusive
perceptions of this, one that creating such codes (just the right codes (not
because they sound good, but because they *do something*) is an act of
artistry, and another perception that it is an act of mathematics. It would
be engineering if it weren't virtual, but it is so it isn't. It is dumb
luck/evolution/inevitable algorithms, depending on your philosophy, but it
isn't a painting or a book or a picture show or anything else entertaining.
Treating the software market the same as the music market because they're both
IP is stupid. They are both subject to similar abuses, as markets, but they
aren't the same problem, really.

So, yeah, cost of replication itself isn't enough to determine the fair market
value of something, and so (by identifying excesses) identify abuses of the
free market system by those who achieve monopoly power via copyright. You
also have to consider the purpose which computers have for the goods, whether
functional (making anything invested capital) or entertainment (making
anything invested willfully wasted).

Sorry if I went too fast. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" "T. Max Devlin" <email***@***.com> wrote:

> Sorry if I went too fast. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Well, you went fast enough to leave all logic behind, but you've been
doing that in this thread for, what, a couple of entire weeks now?

You keep arguing as if your view of reality held in the real world,
but everywhere we look we find counterexamples to your claims. Even
if you can wave your hands fast enough to fly, you aren't going to
convince me or any other employee that the company owns the skills
we've learned.

xanthian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Kent Paul Dolan say:
>"T. Max Devlin" <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry if I went too fast. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>Well, you went fast enough to leave all logic behind,

You need to go back, and go slower. I don't mind that you had a knee-jerk
reaction.

>but you've been
>doing that in this thread for, what, a couple of entire weeks now?

As far as I know, I've been consistent for about twelve years now. That's
discouraging, but I persevere.

>You keep arguing as if your view of reality held in the real world,

Well, I can't argue from any other perspective but that I believe my view is
correct, now can I? Which part of my view of reality would you care to
dispute?

>but everywhere we look we find counterexamples to your claims.

Well, maybe you're not being properly critical. Maybe trivial counterexamples
end up being just misinterpretations. Boy is my spell-checker going to get a
work-out on this response.

>Even
>if you can wave your hands fast enough to fly, you aren't going to
>convince me or any other employee that the company owns the skills
>we've learned.

Yes, well, it is fortunate I never intended or attempted to do so, now isn't
it?

They do have the ability to demand that you agree to either pay them money or
not resign for a limited time if they pay for the education which instills
those skills. They use it quite a lot, too, when it becomes important.

You seem like a pretty intelligent person. Perhaps you'd like to return to
the issues, whether a business should spend money inefficiently, or perhaps
you'd like to elaborate on my personal failures. To be honest, I'd prefer the
latter, not so that I can further humiliate you nor so that I can try to
convince you that the company that employs you owns the skills that you have.
Just so I can learn more about myself.

Thanks. Hope. Love. -- TMax.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" T. Max Devlin wrote:

> I don't see why. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses do not
> and should not pay for things without the expectation they own them once they
> do. The same can be said for people.

This whole argument is over a false issue, a
semantic quibble.

If you say (as you do above) that companies should
not *pay* for things without the expectation they
own them... that's close to a tautology, because
"paying for" something usually means exchanging
your money in order to gain ownership of the "thing".

Mind you, companies pay huge sums every year for
things they *hire*. Are you saying that is wrong
morally,legally, or even as a business practice?

As for giving someone money without being given
ownership of something in return, that's a simple
no-brainer. Ever been paid a salary? Your employer
may have acted as if he owned you in consequence,
but we all know he did not.

How about giving to charity? Donations to political
parties? Donations to research organizations? There
are so many things companies pay for without gaining
ownership of anything in return it would take all
day to draw up a preliminary list.

Tom

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:21:02 -0500,
T Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Kent Paul Dolan say:
>>Your whole argument falls apart rapidly when you look up for a moment.
>
> I really wish that were true. If I could suddenly realize that my
> understanding were false, though, I'd need something better to fill
> the void.
>
>>Businesses cheerfully pay for lots of things they cannot "own", from
>>clean floors to emptied dumpsters.
>
> So apparently those weren't the things they (and we) pay for, which we
> then expect to own because we've done so.
>
>>The premier example, though, is probably employee training; I can take
>>a class, and on two weeks notice take the knowledge my boss paid for
>>me to acquire, to another employer, or go into business myself in
>>competition with my former employer.
>
> How long have you been in such a position? You haven't yet
> encountered an employer that requires you to provide them compensation
> if you leave soon after valuable training, or that you not leave
> during such a period at all? These things are very very common in
> situations that they often occur. I've been in such situations. Have
> you?
>

Only when I was in the service, other than that, I can walk off the job
tomorrow, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, that pesky 13th
amendment and all...

>>There is no way, since slavery was outlawed, for an employer to "own"
>>the experience and training which that employer paid good money to
>>assure resides in my head.
>
> Non-competes and other exclusivity clauses are contentious, yes. But they
> exist because often enough they are enforceable, or at least unopposed.
>

Non-competes aren't preventing you from leaving, they *may* prevent a
competitor from taking advantage of the training (or whatever) but that
doesn't mean the employer owns it.

>>Thus, there is a *strong* sense in which intellectual property simply
>>isn't the same as other property,
>
> Their mistake. More and more common when the most important
> technology in the last thirty years has been hampered by
> monopolization.
>

non-sequitur. inteellectual property, is not the same as "other"
property.

<snip>

> Sorry if I went too fast. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

You went so fast, you left the whole logic thing behind.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0Y7Dd90bcYOAWPYRArJkAKDtLwiSPi8YqMggdNKG5bpgsjtlSQCgmYWT
TkKY6uCzppTRLz6tL+wFhZg=
=Oy/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I *failed* the Turing test?!?"

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tom Welsh say:
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> I don't see why. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses do not
>> and should not pay for things without the expectation they own them once they
>> do. The same can be said for people.
>
>This whole argument is over a false issue, a
>semantic quibble.

No, *your* whole argument is a quibble. I'm just trying to explain my
position. A position nobody has seriously refuted, except for the
aforementioned quibble.

>If you say (as you do above) that companies should
>not *pay* for things without the expectation they
>own them... that's close to a tautology, because
>"paying for" something usually means exchanging
>your money in order to gain ownership of the "thing".

You are indeed catching on. Economics cannot be refuted with rhetoric; that
is the point being made here.

>Mind you, companies pay huge sums every year for
>things they *hire*. Are you saying that is wrong
>morally,legally, or even as a business practice?

None of the above. In fact, I am not addressing any of those cases, but only
all of the other ones.

>As for giving someone money without being given
>ownership of something in return, that's a simple
>no-brainer. Ever been paid a salary? Your employer
>may have acted as if he owned you in consequence,
>but we all know he did not.

Yet, he owned all of the intellectual property you produced while you were in
his employ, which is, not coincidentally, the crux of the argument, it seems.

>How about giving to charity? Donations to political
>parties? Donations to research organizations? There
>are so many things companies pay for without gaining
>ownership of anything in return it would take all
>day to draw up a preliminary list.

Yes, "pay for without gaining ownership of anything", in all those cases where
ownership is neither possible nor expected. "Pay for without gaining
ownership of the thing they paid for?" when such is possible and could be
expected, no, never happens. By legal law, if not economic law. Except in
cases where one or the other (or both, as in monopolization) are violated.
Then it happens quite regularly. Hell, with increasing frequency.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement"
"T. Max Devlin" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jorn W Janneck say:
> [...]
> >i understand it as a judgment based on his knowledge about his workplace.
> >however, even if you have trouble calling it thus,
>
> I am not concerned with what it is called, but what it is. To say "it is
a
> judgement" as if that alone provides it some truthfulness or validity is
> ludicrous.

but then again, that is not what i did. the fact that it is a judgment is
quite unrelated to whether it is true.

> I understand it as it is; a naive and unsupported supposition
> about his workplace.

i do not know phil well enough to call him naive, but maybe you do. from the
little i have read from him, he seems to be an intelligent and sober
individual that i have respect for.

> >your reply to it (snipped
> >in your last post) missed the point, which had little to do with the
issue
> >of a business trying to maximize its profits and everything to do with
the
> >framework in which it is able to do so.
>
> I snip for brevity, clarity, and convenience. In this case, your
newsreader
> seems to be mangling line-wrap, so rather than neaten everything up
(something
> I am usually compelled to do) I'll just leave it on google.

nothing wrong with this, as long as it does not keep you from actually
addressing the issue at hand.

> As for my missing
> the point (a claim which would be more convincing if it came from the
person I
> was discussing with, rather than yourself)

i wonder what someone's identity might have to do with you missing the point
in a discussion.

> you are mistaken; the point is that
> there is no difference between a business trying to maximize profits and
the
> framework in which it is able to do so.

how can that *possibly* be the case? especially since this discussion seems
to focus on an aspect of the legal framework (which is not under the control
of a single company), and the reactions of companies to modifications of
that part of the legal framework? are you saying there is no distinction
between a law establishing property of intellectual goods, and company
policies concerning their creation?

> When real-life details are provided
> demonstrating that there would be no disadvantage to the business if they
gave
> away the author's work, it might become a matter of judgement (alas, in
this
> case, my judgement) whether I believe it to be true.

the question, however, is not the absence of a disadvantage. clearly, not
allowing intellectual property is a material disadvantage to those who would
otherwise have in, the ip that is.

the point is whether this "disadvantage" would imply that companies would no
longer create intellectual goods, which is and remains your claim.

> Until such details are
> provided, it can be presumed that it doesn't occur because there is a
reason
> it doesn't occur, and as all things in business are presumably driven by
> economics, that reason is that the framework of making money always
remains
> the same: efficiency. How could it be more efficient to give something
away?
> I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that unless it is
demonstrated
> in a particular case, there is no reason to believe it is so.

eclipse-ibm?

> >> It is, on the face
> >> of it, impossible, what he says. Businesses do not and should not
spend money
> >> on things without expecting to own them once they do.
> >
> >eclipse-ibm?
>
> What about it?

it is a case where a company produced something and gave it away. it is, in
short, what you asked for above.

> Are you trying to say that all open source development
> projects refute my point?

yes. your point is universally quantified. ergo, a single example suffices
to counter it.

> You might as well say that any standards
> development does so.

good example!

> It is pure speculation to believe, as you seem to, that
> these things would exist even if intellectual property were not protected

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" T. Max Devlin wrote:

> Yes, "pay for without gaining ownership of anything", in all those cases where
> ownership is neither possible nor expected. "Pay for without gaining
> ownership of the thing they paid for?" when such is possible and could be
> expected, no, never happens.

So you are seriously arguing that companies should
never pay for something, in the expectation of
getting ownership of it, and then not get ownership?

As I said, that is a tautology. No wonder the
argument has gone on so long.

Tom

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:

>>>>> It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
>>>>> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
>>>>> them once they do. The same can be said for people.
>>>>
>>>>It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
>>>>really thinks this.
>>>
>>> You are obviously posturing. It is difficult to believe that
>>> business don't spend money for no reason?
>>
>>Business tend not to spend money for no reason - but they *do* spend
>>money on things that don't expect to wind up owning.
>
> Not true. I've already pointed out your major error; GPL software is owned.

I never mentioned the GPL - or anything that uses it.

There are plenty of open-source software projects out there that *aren't*
owned.

>>>>It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
>>>>up owning them.
>>>
>>> Not things that they would expect to own once they paid for them, no.
>>
>>No, *not* those things - but other things that they *don't* expect to
>>wind up owning - such as business services, things they rent - and
>>contributions to open-source software projects.
>
> Charitable contributions are PR, not business expenses. They're common today
> as a show of faith, but once the monopoly goes away so does any real reason
> to buy something you can't own.

FWIW, I wasn't talking about charities or monopolies - just expenditure
on common services - like taking out the trash.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.lang.java.advocacy Tom Welsh <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
> T. Max Devlin wrote:

>> Yes, "pay for without gaining ownership of anything", in all those
>> cases where ownership is neither possible nor expected. "Pay for
>> without gaining ownership of the thing they paid for?" when such is
>> possible and could be expected, no, never happens.
>
> So you are seriously arguing that companies should
> never pay for something, in the expectation of
> getting ownership of it, and then not get ownership?
>
> As I said, that is a tautology. [...]

No: it can happen - if the company is being duped, fooled, or misled.

However, I agree with the basic point you were trying to make ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>>>>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy T. Max Devlin <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>
>>>>>> It isn't a difficult point to understand. Businesses
>>>>>> do not and should not pay for things without the expectation they own
>>>>>> them once they do. The same can be said for people.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not difficult to understand - but it's hard to believe anyone
>>>>>really thinks this.
>>>>
>>>> You are obviously posturing. It is difficult to believe that
>>>> business don't spend money for no reason?
>>>
>>>Business tend not to spend money for no reason - but they *do* spend
>>>money on things that don't expect to wind up owning.
>>
>> Not true. I've already pointed out your major error; GPL software is owned.
>
>I never mentioned the GPL - or anything that uses it.

So you want a cookie?

>There are plenty of open-source software projects out there that *aren't*
>owned.

No, in fact there aren't. Ever since the Berne Convention was adopted,
intellectual property is owned as soon as it is created. There may be
hobbyists, trade groups, or academic projects that don't plan to benefit from
their ownership, but if there are businesses that do so, they are acting
inefficiently.

>>>>>It seems to me that businesses routinely pay for things without winding
>>>>>up owning them.
>>>>
>>>> Not things that they would expect to own once they paid for them, no.
>>>
>>>No, *not* those things - but other things that they *don't* expect to
>>>wind up owning - such as business services, things they rent - and
>>>contributions to open-source software projects.
>>
>> Charitable contributions are PR, not business expenses. They're common today
>> as a show of faith, but once the monopoly goes away so does any real reason
>> to buy something you can't own.
>
>FWIW, I wasn't talking about charities or monopolies - just expenditure
>on common services - like taking out the trash.

In other words, something that has no bearing at all on intellectual property.
How convenient.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black

java-programmer >> Clarification of OS "advancement" In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Tim Tyler say:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy Tom Welsh <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>> Yes, "pay for without gaining ownership of anything", in all those
>>> cases where ownership is neither possible nor expected. "Pay for
>>> without gaining ownership of the thing they paid for?" when such is
>>> possible and could be expected, no, never happens.
>>
>> So you are seriously arguing that companies should
>> never pay for something, in the expectation of
>> getting ownership of it, and then not get ownership?
>>
>> As I said, that is a tautology. [...]
>
>No: it can happen - if the company is being duped, fooled, or misled.

Guffaw.

>However, I agree with the basic point you were trying to make ;-)

Go figure. Thx.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003! Why can't I teleport?!? ***
-- Louis Black