You haven’t provided a single source that backs up your claim. I will continue to talk with you once you did.

You haven’t provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.

If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.

Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that’s what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it’s on Wikipedia?

Wieder mal eine Frage der KPIs. Wenn Erfolg daran gemessen wird, wie viele Leute man fängt, dann wird eben darauf optimiert statt auf das Wohl der Opfer, welches ja für die KPIs nix bringt.

Und wenn man mit einer Maßnahme, die Opfern stark schadet eine marginal höhere Chance hat Täter zu fangen, dann macht man das eben. Selbst wenn die Maßnahme ggf sogar dazu führt, dass es mehr Täter, mehr Opfer und mehr Verbrechen gibt. Das ist nämlich gut für die KPI.

I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.

While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren’t supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn’t “having new arguments”. It’s “running out of arguments but not admitting to it”. And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there’s no point bringing new arguments apart from “a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row”.

Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.

I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.

I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.

In what world is it not creepy to butt into some strangers’ personal conversation after overhearing details that were clearly not addressed to you?

Have you ever been in a social situation before?

Of course, but an university owning a patent gives them the responsibility to defend it, and also incentivizes them to do so.

This. Last time I built a PC I spent a week researching all sorts of components only to end up with an incompatible motherboard anyway, having to send it back and order something else.

Building the whole thing took around an hour, not a big deal, but everything else that went into it… It’s like having to start your risotto by planting rice.

That logic applies identically to a valid patent.

The difference is that in the case of transferring the patent to the university, there’s a legal department at the ready to defend the patent. The same is not the case for a disclaimed patent.

Well, OP wasn’t donating money, was he?

The scenario you brought up would be creepy too, but people tend to value money over the slight discomfort of creepiness.

Ein wichtiger Unterschied zwischen der finanziellen Belastung durch Pensionisten und durch Kinder ist wie die Belastung getragen wird.

Der Staat zahlt schon ein bisschen was an Kinder (Schule, Familienbeihilfe, Karenzgeld), aber den Großteil der finanziellen Mehrbelastung den zahlen die Eltern (größere Wohnung, Essen, Kleidung, Spielzeug, Kurse, Auto, …). Deswegen scheint diese Mehrbelastung auch nicht im Staatshaushalt auf.

Pensionisten hingegen werden zu fast 100% aus dem Staatshaushalt bzw. privater Pensionsvorsorge finanziert, beides Dinge, die direkt in den Statistiken auftauchen.

Die sichtbare Mehrbelastung ist also bei Pensionisten deutlich höher.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist es also durchaus auch wichtig auf der Einnahmensseite mehr zu tun (z.B. indem man das Limit der Bemessensgrundlage für Pensionen nicht erhöht sondern abschafft).

That’s a core problem with the patent system:

• Patent offices don’t really check for prior art. There’s a short period between patent applications and patents being granted where the public can submit prior art. If nobody notices that such an invalid patent is being applied for and thus nobody submits prior art, the patent is granted. Patent offices are of the opinion that it’s the responsibility of courts to sort out invalid patents like that.
• Patent litigation is super expensive and time consuming. So if a huge corporation like Stratasys holds a patent, most smaller companies (and yes, in this context Creality, Prusa and Bambulab count as small) usually don’t want to spend all the time, effort and risk of a patent fight. Also, even if you win, you don’t get your legal costs back. So even if e.g. Prusa fights Stratasys over that patent and wins, Prusa will still lose all the money they spent on legal costs for the lawsuit. All over a feature that, while cool, doesn’t bring them any money at all if they implement it.

Chemotherapy is bad for the person receiving chemo, it’s just even worse for the cancer. Yes, it cures people, but nobody in their right mind would use chemo on a healty person and claim that it wasn’t bad for that person.

If you have ever seen someone going through chemo, it’s really rough on them, and it’s only done in the hope of getting rid of the cancer and being able to stop using chemo.

But the analogy doesn’t make sense for the discussion on hand, because what propaganda bots do is polarizing, creating distrust, dividing society and cause people to do stupid things due to being angry.

Propaganda bots do that by posting extreme statements on all sides of the political spectrum. They post both pro-russia and anti-russia stuff, pro-capitalism and anti-capitalism, pro-trans and anti-trans, and so on.

So making bots to post anti-russia stuff is doing half their work.

An anti-russia bot would not be chemotherapy, it would be injecting cancer cells into the patient.

Maybe one could make a bot that posts moderate views and content advocating for reconcilliation or something like that.

In 2D games X is right, Y is either up or down. I haven’t seen any engine where X is inverted, but Y can be either direction. Interestingly, I haven’t seen Y as down in any 3D environment yet.

Nowadays you just google for other patents and done. But back then, I guess that searching for prior art was quite a lot more difficult. Gifting the patent to an university so that they defend open access to the patent sounds like a more reliable plan.

I mean, even nowadays patents are greenlit my patent offices even though there’s clear prior art (Nintendo’s recent patent for catching monsters in a ball in a game comes to mind, which Nintendo would have to have patented before publishing their first game with that mechanic around 30 years ago), and even today it’s really difficult and expensive to get such a clear nonsense patent invalidated.

So difficult that e.g. Palworld opted to change the mechanic instead of fighting the patent.

So I do understand why someone would instead gift the patent to an university under the condition that they keep access to it open, especially 100 years ago.

Sounds like the network people at my company. They are asking us to spend more time in the office, but they don’t provide enough desks, they don’t provide working wired LAN and they only provide semi-working Wifi. All with proxies that don’t work and filters that don’t let me access the webapp I am supposed to maintain, which is blocked for “being a commercial website”. Thanks, I know, I have to program that crap.

Technically, there’s a lot more options. Any axis can have any name. The reason why these two main systems exist is because of 2D coordinates.

A 2D coordinate system can either be viewed top-down (piece of paper on a table) or from the front (pixels on a screen). So while X stays the same in both of these options (and thus isn’t contested in 3D coordinates), Y is either up (on a screen) or ahead (on paper), and Z then gets whatever axis is left over.

That’s basically what it comes down to: Is your XY plane a piece of paper that you look at from the top, or is it the pixel coordinates of the screen you are looking through?

That’s why X is usually not contested, because it’s the same on a piece of paper that you view top-down and on a screen that you view from the front.

Y is then one of the two potential axies for either a top-down or a side-scrolling view, and Z is the remaining axis.

First the birds, then the girls?

Listening in on conversations is creepy, no matter how good-looking a person is.

And that stuff happens in movies doesn’t mean it isn’t creepy in real-life.