Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

Agree. The LTS releases are great, but for anything you expect to be working with on an ongoing basis I think it's worth the yearly pain of upgrading rather than a huge headache every three years.

-----


Buffer is quite well known for this, you can view the salary of everyone in the company here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgrWVeoG5divdE8....

-----


~$500/m from sales of my Bootstrap framework for Shopify themes (http://www.bootstrapforshopify.com).

-----


Trademarks are a form of intellectual property.

-----


'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and looser-defined 'trade secrets' all have distinct purposes. Saying "Intellectual Property" when you mean "Trademark" gives the impression that the holder has all kinds of legal protections which don't actually apply.

Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the rights of corporate publishers.

-----


> 'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be.

Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections.

X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.

-----


Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works.

In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share of the profit even if developed as an employee of the company making the profit; again, something not shared with tangible property.

I think of the relationship between "intellectual property" and "property" is more akin to "Pluto is a dwarf planet, but it's not a planet."

-----


> Those are not true subsets like you suggest.

Yes, they are.

> Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category.

Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category.

> For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works.

Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C.

The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.

-----


You are right. My examples were not valid counter examples.

I think of a property right as something which is transferable. The two examples I gave were of rights that were not transferable. However, if "Personal Property" also includes non-transferable rights, then there's no conflict.

As a clear counter-counter-example of why my counter-example is wrong, tenancy rights are part of real property law, and may or may not include succession rights.

My comment then transforms to the (trivial) observation that intellectual property ⊄ real property.

-----


It's quite real, but there are some marks which are so well-known (like Coca Cola) that they can argue that the use of the mark in any context is likely to cause consumer confusion.

If you did launch an OS called CocaCola, they would argue that there would be some confusion in the mind of the reasonable consumer as to whether there was some association with the soft drink manufacturer.

-----


What do your clients do with the things you maintain and deploy? Does it help them make money? If so, then you're helping your clients make money.

I'm in the same position as you (running a small development/consulting shop) and it made a world of difference when we started changing the perspective of our pitch to clients from "yes, we can build a website, it will cost $X" to "yes, we can solve that problem for you, which will save/make you $Y".

-----


I used to use Skyscanner only for intra-Europe flights, but it's quickly becoming my first and last stop when looking for cheap deals. Really fantastic service.

-----


Absolutely.

At the risk of sounding like an acolyte, I've been reading Nathan's stuff for a while and once I decided I had something valuable to teach, I happily shelled out for Authority to get some guidance and focus on how to go about packaging and launching a course book.

I'm mid-way through the writing process and I don't regret the purchase at all.

-----


Not sure if "largely unused" is right. I use them all the time, and have seen them in pretty common use around the place.

-----


Ah, I think you are in a minority. Or maybe I'm very opinionated :)

-----


I make about $200/m in affiliate revenue from Shopify (http://www.shopify.com/?ref=disco) <= Yes, that's an affiliate link.

-----


From where do you get your affiliates?

-----


I sell a framework for Shopify theme development (http://bootstrapforshopify.com). It's free to use on sites that have been set up with my affiliate link.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: