Why would they ever worry about this. They can always put a couple of pions on the job of creating a crappy ebay page and sell off the old stock under the name "Redneck Electronic Sellers Ltd."
There isn't any controversy on whether physical goods have value. No one believes that harm isn't done in a robbery.
There is controversy about "Intellectual Property" and goes back to the start of the union. Some people question the idea that harm is done when IP is violated and have solid reasoning behind their beliefs.
As far as the rape trial.. you're being bombastic, but if someone says that all rapes are false then they shouldn't be on jury. If someone says that anyone accused of rape is automatically guilty, they shouldn't be on the jury either. See what I'm getting at? If you believe that patent holders rights trump everything you shouldn't be on a patent trial jury.
Of course I don't know any of that for sure, but avoiding appearance of impropriety is important too.
I have a bigger problem with that person being the jury foreman than the prior art problem.
It certainly has the possibility of impropriety. Wouldn't you think a patent holder would resist the idea of saying that a certain patent was unfairly given? Especially if his own patent was rather shaky. You wouldn't want to throw doubt on your own patent by saying it's possible that the patent office screws up.
One problem that I do see is that the jury foreman is a patent holder himself. That could of been an impact. There's a good chance he didn't like the idea that a jury could come back and say that some patents being given out right now are unfair and/or worthless.
The problem is the agenda of the debate is constantly controlled. Plus, you would need to discuss it in the mass media, which takes the corporate side in each and every debate.
The first time I have EVER heard patents brought up in the MSM was on CNN last weekend, and the spokemodel (oh sorry, anchor woman) talked like patents were God's gift to the earth.
I work at a university, and between watching the parade of SUVs come into the garage every day and watching other cars on the way into work I would be generous to say that 10% of the SUVs have more than one passenger. Probably it's closer to 5%.
The SUV is a status symbol and masturbation of the ego. That's all it's good for. If you have a family then get a mini-van.
Was Intellectual Ventures in the book "Freakanomics"?
I don't have access to that book anymore but I seem to remember that a very IV type company was in that book because of their anti-global warming idea.
In every dying industry that made loads of money in its heyday, they're whining to Congress.
The correct action is to let them die out.
However, the most steady trait of corporate fat cats is they are all for the free market in public but are the first the whine about it when the market turns against them.
If you look at history, it seems that big industries that are dying out all fit into a similar pattern.
As usual, we look like the Gilded age years when the fatcats always got exactly everything they wanted from congress. The Gilded age, of course, led straight to the great depression.
What world are you living in? Seriously. Corporations have much more power than the individual and they dictate terms all the time, especially in granted monopolies and in natural monopolies like ebay. And, yes, ebay is a natural monopoly to the extent that it wouldn't even occur to many non-geeks that they have competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. thanks to YOU for showing your amorality in this post, AC.
It's scheduled to come out in two weeks.
Why would they ever worry about this. They can always put a couple of pions on the job of creating a crappy ebay page and sell off the old stock under the name "Redneck Electronic Sellers Ltd."
yep.. MBAs *never* misuse these terms.
lolz... :P
If you're one of the good ones, good for you.
There isn't any controversy on whether physical goods have value. No one believes that harm isn't done in a robbery.
There is controversy about "Intellectual Property" and goes back to the start of the union. Some people question the idea that harm is done when IP is violated and have solid reasoning behind their beliefs.
As far as the rape trial.. you're being bombastic, but if someone says that all rapes are false then they shouldn't be on jury. If someone says that anyone accused of rape is automatically guilty, they shouldn't be on the jury either. See what I'm getting at? If you believe that patent holders rights trump everything you shouldn't be on a patent trial jury.
Of course I don't know any of that for sure, but avoiding appearance of impropriety is important too.
Saying that the Patent office screwed up in this case has the potential to be read as the Patent office *is* a screw up... in *all* cases.
Use the interwebs to look up "appearance of impropriety."
There was a time in history we tried to avoid it.
I think the fact that he had a patent should of disqualified him... period. It has the potential to bias him towards the patent holders.
I have a bigger problem with that person being the jury foreman than the prior art problem.
It certainly has the possibility of impropriety. Wouldn't you think a patent holder would resist the idea of saying that a certain patent was unfairly given? Especially if his own patent was rather shaky. You wouldn't want to throw doubt on your own patent by saying it's possible that the patent office screws up.
Outside of Slashdot, my own family, and my coworkers I *never* hear anyone questioning the patent system.
A lot of people don't care. Even though it does affect the everyday life they don't make the connection.
I am not sure that was the problem here.
One problem that I do see is that the jury foreman is a patent holder himself. That could of been an impact. There's a good chance he didn't like the idea that a jury could come back and say that some patents being given out right now are unfair and/or worthless.
The problem is the agenda of the debate is constantly controlled. Plus, you would need to discuss it in the mass media, which takes the corporate side in each and every debate.
The first time I have EVER heard patents brought up in the MSM was on CNN last weekend, and the spokemodel (oh sorry, anchor woman) talked like patents were God's gift to the earth.
I work at a university, and between watching the parade of SUVs come into the garage every day and watching other cars on the way into work I would be generous to say that 10% of the SUVs have more than one passenger. Probably it's closer to 5%.
The SUV is a status symbol and masturbation of the ego. That's all it's good for. If you have a family then get a mini-van.
My family actually owns stock in Apple. And guess what? I still think it's bullshit.
If the "look and feel" lawsuit had happened in the present-day US, Apple would have won it.
And where would be we be now?
Do you think the purchasers of this law would of allowed that? Really?? Who do you think is in control?
When you're looking back at Carli Fiorina as your salad days, you should fold up shop.
Fiorina is one of the most overblown, overrated CEOs of her time. Anything she touches turns to shit. She's about as smart as a paper bag.
What a fucking troll.
But weren't they also the authors of the idea to build huge floating devices to use for ocean cooling?
Maybe I'm getting the ideas mixed up and one of the ideas was an anti-hurricane device.
Was Intellectual Ventures in the book "Freakanomics"?
I don't have access to that book anymore but I seem to remember that a very IV type company was in that book because of their anti-global warming idea.
"Free marketeers" are the first to whine to the government when things don't go their way.
In every dying industry that made loads of money in its heyday, they're whining to Congress.
The correct action is to let them die out.
However, the most steady trait of corporate fat cats is they are all for the free market in public but are the first the whine about it when the market turns against them.
If you look at history, it seems that big industries that are dying out all fit into a similar pattern.
As usual, we look like the Gilded age years when the fatcats always got exactly everything they wanted from congress. The Gilded age, of course, led straight to the great depression.
Seriously. Do this in *every* jurisdiction!
What world are you living in? Seriously. Corporations have much more power than the individual and they dictate terms all the time, especially in granted monopolies and in natural monopolies like ebay. And, yes, ebay is a natural monopoly to the extent that it wouldn't even occur to many non-geeks that they have competition.