SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The January rumours were true and on Friday Oracle laid off the core talent from the Solaris and SPARC teams, in effect finally killing what they had left of Sun Microsystems. When Oracle aquired Sun, there were a lot of valuable assets, each of which, except VirtualBox, has been squandered and abandoned. Simon Phipps enumerates the main ones and what happened to them.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:17PM (6 children)
Why should they be allowed to keep the copyrights and patents?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by crafoo on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:36PM (5 children)
I think this is an excellent point. They should transfer to the public domain or follow the people that created the innovations.
More generally, should patents and copyrights ever be transferable to a corporation? Only humans should retain patents and copyright. They should never be transferable to accountants, lawyers, and bureaucrats (corporations).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday September 05 2017, @08:03PM (4 children)
Oh FFS, what does it matter if the patent's are held in Oracle's name or Larry Ellison's name? The result would be the same.
First you insist on only Humans. Then you disqualify wide swaths of humans simply based on their profession.
Tell you what: Lets all check with YOU from now on any time a patent is to be transferred. You seem to be the expert in this field. Should we call you the patent Tzar, or would "Your Majesty" sound better?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday September 05 2017, @08:56PM (3 children)
Money doesn't innovate. Bureaucrats, Lawyers, and MBAs do not innovate. Corporations do not innovate. People do. Humans. IF patents and copyrights are allowed to exist (and they are a very artificial construction, remember) then they should stay where they are created. I don't understand why this makes you angry. It's a much more natural state to advocate for. Look at the colossal mess that's created when you make up all of these artificial, unnatural, and ridiculous rules to govern the transfer of ownership of ideas. It's absurd.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 05 2017, @11:05PM (2 children)
Are you saying Patents, or IP generally, should not be transferrable, or saleable, or licensable?
How then does an "inventor" make any money from their "invention"?
If it is transferrable, or saleable, then why would the guy with the money (in this case, Larry) not just buy it? The owner would n be... Larry.
A person, but not the inventor. Wether a person or a corporation owns the IP/patent doesn't matter. Somone paid for the lab space, the hardware, the software, the whiteboard.. Sometimes that may have been the "inventor", but not often.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @05:00AM
You are looking at the problem from faulty assumptions. Money? Another artificial construct developed to help humans interact. You have an Ouroboros argument there, and it is currently killing our world.
I am not being hyperbolic. Many countries are suffering from the effects of human greed paired with a dispassionate accounting system which is easily gamed. The planet is suffering from the effects of human greed, the wellbeing of our environment subjugated to our need for profit in an economy built upon artificial human constructs.
The answer to these problems will not be simple and will entail a lot of struggle, but we should begin with understanding that the "economy" is merely a tool to facilitate human development. Right now people have become disillusioned with religion, but humans haven't changed that much so what filled the void? All hail our great Lord of economics.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday September 06 2017, @08:57AM
"If it is transferrable, or saleable, then why would the guy with the money (in this case, Larry) not just buy it? The owner would n be... Larry."
I'm saying that it shouldn't be transferable and they should not be able to buy it. "it" is an artificial thing granted by government to promote the generation of new innovations. The current mess doesn't really do that. I believe a big part of the problem is the transferring of control and the ability to create wealth of each new innovations away from the innovators and to the people that control the capital. At most, limited contracts that grant another person the ability to use a patent to build something useful and make money from the product is probably a good idea. Not control of the IP itself, or the ability to litigate it without the original inventors/creators present, in person, and in agreement.