This thread has deteriorated into nonsense. 
6 Likes
you are overdoing it. nvidia is not evil. samsung is not evil. You hate these companies and you glorify criminals who attack these companies. And you are getting applause here in the forum. I am shocked.
5 Likes
Yeah, I glorify these criminals because they are on the side of goodness, and I hate the corporations that are doing evil things (not all corporations, but the ones we are talking about definitely are).
When laws are evil (laws pertaining to copyright and patents in most places on Earth) and serve to protect the evil ones at the expense of the righteous, breaking them is a good thing. The moral outlaw, is a common character, a hero of many legends and stories, and deservingly so. People admire such outlaws.
Itâs nice to know that there are still people who risk their freedom and actual property (unlike this imaginary âintellectual propertyâ) in order to defy unjust law and expose the secrets of those who are immoral. I admire such people.
Of course, I am not encouraging anyone to do anything illegal. My admiration will do you very little if you end up behind bars.
4 Likes
Really? The thoughts and inventions I may devise are not my property? Inventions are both physical and products of thought. If I write a novel, do I not have rights over that novel? If I design a better engine, do I not have rights over that design? Intellectual property and what you call actual property are one and the same.
2 Likes
I think your complaint has more to do with the fact that you donât like copyright and patent laws. That doesnât make these corps evil. They are just using the laws that are set out to protect their property. I do agree that some of their actions are immoral and are based on greed and profit. But i do think they have a right to use the lawâs that are available to them to protect their property via copyright and patents. Ideally in a perfect world it would be nice to have some opensource patent sharing between groups but that is entirely up to those who hold them.
2 Likes
There is no property in information, for it is not scarce. If I copy a file (say, a novel youâve written) from your computer even without your consent, I may have violated your privacy, but I have stolen nothing from you, if you still have that file and all the information contained within it.
You have a right to your novel, of course. But you have no right to my paper, my ink and my hard drives (the actual, tangible property) so you have no right to demand I destroy a copy of your novel just so you can be the exclusive possessor of this information.
5 Likes
Copyright and patent law is a protection for individuals and protect investment and encourage innovation. One can argue that the ways in which those laws are implemented in the realm of software production require some adjustment. However, both copyright and patents protect individuals who want to innovate and contribute to society. Corporations are treated much the same as individuals under the law, so copyright and patent law protects them as well.
3 Likes
You have no idea what copyright actually protects. My copyrighted novel prevents you from printing and selling copies without giving me, the copyright holder, compensation for my work.
3 Likes
This is just false. Patent laws stifle innovation (see research by Stephan N. Kinsella, for example).
Patent law is just a state enforcement of monopoly. Nobody benefits from a monopoly, except the one who has it.
Yes, the copyright law threatens to hurt me for using my ink and my paper the way I see fit. So it actually violates my actual property rights.
4 Likes
Although i may agree with some aspects of what you are arguing i donât agree entirely in the context that you are putting it in. Patent and copyright laws are there to protect the owner of the material whether it be in informational form, design etc.
There is no property in information. It cannot be owned. Itâs just zeroes and ones, anyone can copy it without depriving anyone of it.
4 Likes
I hope you are merely playing devilâs advocate here. This is nonsense.
1 Like
Yet you call Google âevilâ because they provide a service to you in exchange for information about what you search on the internet. Itâs just zeros and ones, and they are not depriving you of it.
Can I give my two cents? We are free to not buy from these companies, the problem I see is when monopoly has taken place.
Nah, heâs very serious. Thereâs deep theoretical, logical and practical base and arguments for this line of thought.
We have discussed all that stuff here on forum about 256 times already 
1 Like
Sorry, I disagree. Information is material. It is just in that form. An idea, a design, a theory, whatever. It all comes from some form of information! Initially just a thought! A dream! An experiment, a biological test! Whatever! Itâs information! Thatâs where it started!
3 Likes
I call them evil for not being transparent about it. For lying, deceiving and manipulating people. Iâve never accused them of having stolen anything from me, though â I have no double standard in this regard.
That is evidently false. The proof is in the fact that it can be copied at no loss to the original.
3 Likes
Thatâs just nonsense! Thatâs just youâre opinion because that is what you think. Property can be information.
2 Likes
Opinion is property!
P.S. Stop stealing my heart, you rascal you! Itâs my property! 
Just calling it nonsense is not an argument.
In order for something to be property, it has to be scarce. If I take it from you, you no longer have it.
The entire purpose of property rights is for civilised people to settle disputes in a peaceful, ethical, and methodical way about who has the right to some scarce resource (without resorting to violent conflict like savages, which they recognise is to the detriment of everyone involved).
There cannot be a property dispute over information, because everyone can make use of it without depriving anyone else of using it. The idea of intellectual property is a reification fallacy.
2 Likes