despair.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Why doesn't he use some of those millions... by smirkleton · 2001-05-01 02:56 · Score: 1 · on Using Lisp to beat your Competition.

...to hire a graphic designer?

It looks like his web store was BUILT in 1995!

(from the Yahoo Stores online tutorial...)

"High Production Values"

"Production values are even more important on the Web. Consumers will not buy from an amateurish Web site..."

"Of course there is no direct connection between the quality of your site and the quality of your company. A company could have a brilliant graphic designer and lousy products. But usually there is a connection, and that is what visitors to your site will assume. If your company is unable to put up a good Web site, then it seems natural to assume that your company cannot deliver good products or services..."

Maybe Museumcompany.com or Despair.com could offer Mr. Graham some design tips on getting the most out of his own store-building application.

Of course, with millions in the bank, he probably doesn't give a rat's ass whether he sells any LISP books or not. So I guess I answered my own question. Nevermind.

Dead Dot-Coms and Lawsuits by FortKnox · 2001-04-20 02:30 · Score: 1 · on Judge Refuses to Reveal Anonymous Posters

its sad that dead dot-coms are trying to use lawsuits to turn a profit. The days of playing foosball instead of working, because your site made money on its own, is over. Quit trying to make the quick buck, realize the dot-com era is over, and get a job in corporate america and conform like the rest of us.
Conformity : When people are free to do what they want, they normally mimic one another (from despair.com)

Re:Before you try it... by roady · 2001-03-15 08:31 · Score: 1 · on NCR Claims Palm Infringes As "Personal Terminal"

You were not talking about Despair.Inc., were you?

:-( by Anonymous Coward · 2001-02-14 08:07 · Score: 1 · on Appeals Court Puts Amazon 1-Click Patent in Question

If Amazon's getting smacked for their stupid patent, how much longer til despair gets nailed for their frown icon trademark?

I'm worried. I just bought 5000 Frownies and would like to hope that they remain legitimately protected by law.

But if Amazon's patent doesn't stand up to scrutiny...

:-(

(damn. only 4998 left.)

Re:patents and copyright are pro-free market by pbryan · 2001-01-27 03:23 · Score: 2 · on (Well Written) Essay Against Copyright

Divec writes:

I disagree; you can have trade which is purely a swap of services. A lot of business-to-business trade is essentially of this form. You only need a concept of property to deal in physical goods which have scarcity (i.e. cannot be duplicated for nothing), like food or computer hardware.

When trading purely services, you are in fact, using your own property, namely your own body, mind, intellect. These belong to you and any services you provide would be based on the use of your property.

If someone wants you to mow the lawn, you would be providing a service. You might use some property to do it more efficiently than otherwise. You might use a lawnmower you own. You use property all the time in the commission of providing a service.

A patent allows you to stop me using an idea which you thought of.

You rightly point out that a patent can even stop me from using an idea I thought about. That fundamental flaw strongly shows why laws to protect intangible "intellectual" property have no place in the information age.

For example...

:-(®

The so-called "frowny" has been trademarked by Despair, inc. Admittedly, it appears that it was registered to make a mockery of the PTO. Though, my use of this trademark in conjunction with a negative comment would "dilute the value" of the frowny trademark, and would be cause for some lawsuit. :P (has the tongue sticking out emoticon been trademarked yet?)
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.ht ml

Someone patented the use of a laser to provide exercise for cats. I have, on a number of occasions inadvertently violated this patent in amusing cats, and if it could be proven, I would likely be required to pay royalties for the use of this idea that was independently arrived at.
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__

Some might argue that it's just a system that needs to be tweaked - fixed through some kind of reform to allow "legitimate" owners of "intellectual property" to be rewarded for their labor.

I propose that all "intellectual property" law does is prop-up old business models and keep new ones from emerging. If we lived in a world without copyright, patent and trademark, it would be different. The presence of such laws has slowed progress where progress would have naturally occurred. Who's to say that the progress such laws protects is more important than the progress that it discourages?

Some argue that without such protections, less innovation and creation would be performed. Kinsella and Mercer argue that there would be as much creation and innovation that the world requires - no more, no less.

In my view, the world would be transformed to the open-source model. That you give away the recipe and sell the chicken. That you can download music free but pay for the live performance. You'd pay to see movies on the big screen with great sound.

In the year 2080, when we get our first replicator at home, if we decide to replicate something, will someone claim ownership to that idea and only allow us to create an instance of it if we pay? Will someone own the concept of a chair and receive royalties everytime someone replicates one?

Laws should never be created to protect the way of doing business. The industrial age transformed the way things were made. If the Luddites had their way, chairs would still be made by hand, or at least those who use machines would subsidize those who make by hand. Laws should only protect our rights to hold real, tangible property.