namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@johnabs You are presenting moral arguments now, my argument was that you have no economic argument so let's stick to it. You seem to try to prove that IP is irrelevant, but the go and point out how china steals all the IP. If it was so irrelevant you would have never known about it. It is very much relevant and is a big threat to US and others which rely upon it, and hence all the fuss. But this argument is tangential, and I don't know why present it when you reject the premise that IP law goes against right to repair, which is the crux of my argument. If you reject it we should focus on that, cause nothing else makes sense past that point.
Apple could be a good boy and do good things, the question is why and how can it do the bad things it does. In relation to that the only argument I see is the "I don't want the design of the chip I just want the manufacturer to sell it to me". Have you thought about why such a bogus arrangement with the manufacturer is even possible? It is because the chip is proprietary. It is not patented with design available, it's not a trade secret either, it's an intellectual property subject to copyright law, which includes things like "no reverse engineering". It such protection were not in place, it would be trivial to find a replacement for the chip. It's not that complicated of a thing, the problem is you would never be able to prove you haven't "reverse engineered" it if you make the replacement. If it wasn't an established culture that it's ok for you to have not a clue how your device works or how it is designed, nothing like an no-trade arrangement with one manufacturer would stop you from repairing it, and as long as the cultured is in place, many a similar things will be used to exploit you. We are deep in this hole, and unless we realize it, we will never crawl out. No matter how much better you personal laptop is compared to a MAC book, you still do not fully own it and have a very limited capacity to repair it, without wholly relying on the benevolence of the IP owner.
@johnabs right to repair goes directly again established IP laws and culture. For a device to be repairable in principle its deign must be open, and hence conceptually or practically can not be anyone's IP, outside of matters of attribution. This kind of reform will never happen in the US as long as it is in US national interests. Small business and local competition will never match the massive chunk of everyone's pie that they get internationally. IP reform will make US weaker and it's people poorer overall. Then the question to the people becomes:
Do you want to have a unrepairable mac book, or a huawei laptop, for the repairability(or any other quality) of which the responsible parties are located in china, because, surprise-surprise, that's the experience of the most of the rest of the world with IPs and business practices established around them.
@Eris I have no idea what you are even talking about now, just write up exactly what you want me to say, and I'll copy paste it here, cause otherwise my thoughts, even the most primitive appear incomprehensible to you, and I believe that is intentional, and not natural
@Eris but I don't, sorry again to disappoint
@Eris If I had decided that I wouldn't engage
@Eris care to complete that tiny quote... oh right you didn't read it fully... how many more proofs do you need?
@Eris Because you are hell bent on proving something to me that I couldn't care less about, and nothing else matters to you
@Eris When I try several times and it doesn't work, I decide hat I can't at the moment
@Eris you do know, it's in this thread, you'll just never admit @AR-15 @bonifartius
@Eris if I have not, then I can not the moment, so that is that
@Eris to you, even though you will never admit it
@Eris I repeatedly proved that you don;t read it, and you admitted it, by understanding what I say only after the third or fourth time I chewed it up for you. @AR-15 @bonifartius
@Eris cause according to you I'm insane and evil, what more do you want to deduce about me without reading anything I write?
@Eris no it is not, it is about OP specifically, someone I talked to before and who I expect to read through my snark, and not pis their pants and start making death treats
@Eris implied to your delusional ass that is fixated on one thing
@Eris in reference to the OPer and the context of the OP, and nobody else and nothing else, you imagined the rest I'm afraid
@Eris I did that multiple times, unlike you
@Eris you imaginary opponent told you all those things in your wet dreams not me, and not in this thread
> No, you do not?
Curious belief...
> The statement "I'm not gonna chew this up for you" is literally taking joy in the fact that you could be clearer and are choosing not to.
That was a single instance when I was talking to AR-15, not you
