🇳🇱
What is your favorite STEM association (feel free to comment if not listed)
@freemo It would’ve been the ACM but I can’t abide their code of ethics. In particular, I can’t pretend to care about software patents.
@tek What about their code of ethics do you dislike, and what do software patents have to do with it?
@freemo You have to agree to respect software patents, which 1) are BS, and 2) is incredibly risky, because it implies that you *know* what’s patented (which could be literally anything because of point 1), and if you admit that you know something is protected by a patent and you implement it anyway then it’s triple damages. Game theory says the only ethical path to protecting your employer is to actively avoid knowing anything about software patents.
@tek Isnt that literally required from any publishing software association. It would be illegal not to respect software patterns and by extension illegal for an organization to publish something that violates a software patent.
It would seem they would be required to make that stipulation by law regardless of any personal opinions they may have.
@freemo Software patents are worthless for their stated purpose of advancing the arts. Literally no one has ever gone to a patent database to find good ways to do something. The only thing they’re effective at is holding back technological progress, and I think that’s unethical, therefore I can’t state that I’m willing to support a code of ethics that requires me to respect them.
If I knew of a specific software patent that affected my work, I would be careful to avoid infringing that crap.
@tek But thats not really the point. You can disagree with the usefullness of patents all you want, but its still a law and whether you disagree with it or not you are obligated to uphold it (and if you dont they will just take your property from you).
The ASM has the same obligation. Their code of ethics is very simply required by law. They have absolutely no choice but to make it part of their code of ethics. So whether you or them think patents are a good idea or not, really is not relevant to the discussion, its been decided for them and they are required by law to uphold it.
I can see you disagreeing with the notion of patents. but to decry a whole organization because they simply follow the law they are obligated to follow, that seems like an ethical leap to me.
@freemo They are absolutely not required to put “respect software patents” in their code of ethics. They’re not even legally required to *have* a code of ethics. There is no legislation that obligates that. None. They added that because they thought it was important to add. And that’s fine, but it means I’m not going to swear to uphold it.
Maybe the law says I have to kick dogs. If Association, Inc. adds “agrees to kick dogs” to its CoE, I’m not going to promise that I’ll kick dogs.
@tek I am not saying they need to have a code of ethics, or that the phrasing needs to be in there.
What I am saying is they ARE required to reject any publications that violate a patent holder. Likewise they would be required to silence any voice that is part of the organization that actively promotes other people violate patents.
As such even if they didnt mention it in their code of ethics they would be required to **act** as though it were in their code of ethics by actively acting against anyone who violates patent law.
Since a code of ethics is little more than a list of rules the organization enforces upon any material published on their site they simply choose to explicitly state this particular rule rather than to say nothing and have to enforce it as an unwritten rule.
To me I'd rather be told about the rule straight forward in the code of ethics than have a company behave as if it were a rule but not mention it as a rule anyway.
Also legally speaking it is very possible by having a code of ethics and not mentioning it anyone who violated the rule and was denied publication could potentially cause problems for the ASM.
Again, your logic really doesnt connect with me even if i accept your notion of disagreeing with patents as a law.
@tek Sure but if your going to refuse to work with any organization that has as part of their rules that they respect pattents (written or otherwise) your going to have very few services, businesses, or publications you could ever work with. Its either implied or explicitly stated in the rules of virtually any business.
@freemo In my experience, I haven’t seen that wording much more specific than “will obey intellectual property laws” anywhere I’ve worked that I remember, including some very large IP holders. I’ll agree to stay on the legal side of patent issues, but that’s not the same as saying I’ll respect them.
Anyway, it’s been a pleasure chatting. I’m going back to playing with a kitten now.
@tek Again, some companies just dont explicitly state it. It is always a rule. I dont think it makes a big difference that the ASM explicitly stated it over other agencies that enforce it but dont explicitly state it.
If anything I'd say its nice the ACM is explicit about it so you know about it rather than needing to be knowledgeable to know yourself and assume or ask.
@tek It was nice talking to you too, have a great day.
@freemo That’s fine, and I acknowledge that intelligent, thoughtful people may disagree with me. But going along with their code of ethics would violate my own, so I don’t. And I’ll certainly take every opportunity to disrespect the idea of software patents (in the “all senses of ‘respect’ other than ‘obey at gunpoint’” way) publicly and privately, which one common interpretation of their CoE would seem to imply that I shouldn’t be doing.