I can understand your sentiment, but as far as I know, not even the Bible says a man has a right to his ideas. Even Jefferson says ideas should be free to share for the mutual enlightenment of man. Even an idea embodied in an invention should not result in compensation beyond production of the invention.
Considering the problems facing us now, we're more likely to survive if we share our inventions and ideas rather than restrict their use in any fashion whatsoever.
Dramatically lowering the presumption of validity would go a long way to reducing the trolls. At the moment, patents are presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence proves otherwise. How about something like a preponderance of evidence? How about prior art the patent office didn't even consider? As it stands, the Patent Office is essentially unchecked with such a high burden of proof for defendants.
No, they did not win yet. Sure, they got a nice ruling from a judge with obvious animus towards Novell. The judge handed a ruling to Microsoft, nothing more. This same judge has already been overruled by the appellate courts and that is likely to happen again in this case. We'll see. But Microsoft has not the war, they've only won a battle.
Well, I don't know about your characterization of your post. You've made a good, Darwinian point about unnecessary drug use. On the other hand, in your example, does the subsidy received by the people who really need the drugs outweigh the costs to society for the medical care provided to the people who took drugs they don't need?
But advertising the drug to people who don't need it should increase the legal liability of everyone involved in getting the drug to the user who doesn't need it. Shouldn't it?
Drug companies advertise on the evening news to the 90-percent'ers. They're the people who take Tylenol, Tums, Advil or (take your pick here), every day, as if they were vitamins. Those same people consume 90% of production. You've noticed the rent-seeking, too?
I make the assumption that if I see something advertised on TV, especially food or drugs, I don't need it. As to whether or not patent protection will improve health, I would rather have 100 companies developing health care products, including pharma, than one big company with all the patents. Take away the patents, and then suddenly, everyone is copying each other, making improvements, racing to be the first to market.
We might even save money if the government paid for all the testing and we took away the patents. Then once a drug has been tested and found to work, it's just a matter of certification for the producers. That would place the emphasis on production, not rent seeking.
Patents infringe on life whereas life copies any idea and improves upon the idea AT WILL.
I think it's worth noting that the peculiar feature of corporations, perpetuity, is at least partially enable by the fact that not all of the money goes to people.
Thanks for bringing up a point that is often missed: Patents are an optional power grant that Congress may choose to exercise. I think that innovation would run like a the flaming chicken on a Firebird Trans Am without patents.
I agree with what you're saying in principle. I don't believe in FRAND because it leaves FOSS out of the picture. But one question does come to mind: is Motorola Mobility setting prices higher for Apple and Microsoft? If so, are they doing so in retaliation against litigation from Apple and Microsoft or their proxies?
The FRAND issue you raise seems more like tit-for-tat than an industry-wide abuse of FRAND. In the link you provided, Apple and Microsoft were the only other companies mentioned and, as far as I know, they are the only companies complaining about Motorola's licensing practices of essential patents.
Oh, this is interesting. Do you have a good reference on how Samsung abuses FRAND patent obligations? Seriously, I'd like to learn more. Yes I could do a search myself, but I'd like to know where you learned of this. Do tell.
I wonder if Samsung would be more forgiving if Apple wasn't suing for injunctions against Samsung hardware.
I like your sig. I would only add that intellectual property is incoherent with nature. Nature is the best example of how ideas are copied, improved and discarded when they don't work anymore. The entire concept of intellectual property is an attempt to disregard a billion years of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand your sentiment, but as far as I know, not even the Bible says a man has a right to his ideas. Even Jefferson says ideas should be free to share for the mutual enlightenment of man. Even an idea embodied in an invention should not result in compensation beyond production of the invention.
Considering the problems facing us now, we're more likely to survive if we share our inventions and ideas rather than restrict their use in any fashion whatsoever.
He may be more like a pawn.
I thought that was done.
i wonder if they tracked the type of beer as a variable.
I wonder what the EULA will look like.
Amen.
Dramatically lowering the presumption of validity would go a long way to reducing the trolls. At the moment, patents are presumed valid unless clear and convincing evidence proves otherwise. How about something like a preponderance of evidence? How about prior art the patent office didn't even consider? As it stands, the Patent Office is essentially unchecked with such a high burden of proof for defendants.
No, they did not win yet. Sure, they got a nice ruling from a judge with obvious animus towards Novell. The judge handed a ruling to Microsoft, nothing more. This same judge has already been overruled by the appellate courts and that is likely to happen again in this case. We'll see. But Microsoft has not the war, they've only won a battle.
Very interesting analysis.
Well, I don't know about your characterization of your post. You've made a good, Darwinian point about unnecessary drug use. On the other hand, in your example, does the subsidy received by the people who really need the drugs outweigh the costs to society for the medical care provided to the people who took drugs they don't need?
But advertising the drug to people who don't need it should increase the legal liability of everyone involved in getting the drug to the user who doesn't need it. Shouldn't it?
Drug companies advertise on the evening news to the 90-percent'ers. They're the people who take Tylenol, Tums, Advil or (take your pick here), every day, as if they were vitamins. Those same people consume 90% of production. You've noticed the rent-seeking, too?
I make the assumption that if I see something advertised on TV, especially food or drugs, I don't need it. As to whether or not patent protection will improve health, I would rather have 100 companies developing health care products, including pharma, than one big company with all the patents. Take away the patents, and then suddenly, everyone is copying each other, making improvements, racing to be the first to market.
We might even save money if the government paid for all the testing and we took away the patents. Then once a drug has been tested and found to work, it's just a matter of certification for the producers. That would place the emphasis on production, not rent seeking.
Patents infringe on life whereas life copies any idea and improves upon the idea AT WILL.
I think it's worth noting that the peculiar feature of corporations, perpetuity, is at least partially enable by the fact that not all of the money goes to people.
Ouch.
Thanks for bringing up a point that is often missed: Patents are an optional power grant that Congress may choose to exercise. I think that innovation would run like a the flaming chicken on a Firebird Trans Am without patents.
Here is one of my favorite references on the subject: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
Oh, thanks. I didn't realize that as I wasn't following that part of the story too closely.
Nice dialog, but I'm lost on the punchline. Where is it going? I guess I'm a little slow this morning. How does Borders fit in?
I agree with what you're saying in principle. I don't believe in FRAND because it leaves FOSS out of the picture. But one question does come to mind: is Motorola Mobility setting prices higher for Apple and Microsoft? If so, are they doing so in retaliation against litigation from Apple and Microsoft or their proxies?
The FRAND issue you raise seems more like tit-for-tat than an industry-wide abuse of FRAND. In the link you provided, Apple and Microsoft were the only other companies mentioned and, as far as I know, they are the only companies complaining about Motorola's licensing practices of essential patents.
I'll go one further and say patent abolition is the only way to stop it.
1 million phone activations a day isn't even close to the end for Android.
Oh, this is interesting. Do you have a good reference on how Samsung abuses FRAND patent obligations? Seriously, I'd like to learn more. Yes I could do a search myself, but I'd like to know where you learned of this. Do tell.
I wonder if Samsung would be more forgiving if Apple wasn't suing for injunctions against Samsung hardware.
Those who can't innovate, litigate. Seems like that would be Apple.
Maybe it's clearer to say that capitalism != free markets, wouldn't you agree?
I like your sig. I would only add that intellectual property is incoherent with nature. Nature is the best example of how ideas are copied, improved and discarded when they don't work anymore. The entire concept of intellectual property is an attempt to disregard a billion years of evolution.