Yes, you can do that now, and you consider it obvious, because you have used a cell phone. You have used/seen different types of cell phones. You doubtless have read countless articles on how they work. You know what components are used in them.
Now, go back 30 years and tell us that you could have come up with a Droid or iPhone then. Not just a general idea (little handheld-device that lets you do things), but an actual, working, Droid or iPhone or equivalent. Remember, there were no Li-ion batteries, no touch displays, no GSM, no ARM processors. Even supposedly simple stuff like magnets small enough and powerful enough to make a speaker you could hear didn't exist. No digital cameras. To get from where we were 30 years ago to where we are now took thousands and thousands of innovations, damn near all of them patented.
So yes, undeniably patents encourage innovation. Furthermore, as you said, if you implemented your 'obvious' cell phone you would be infringing on many patents. The way to avoid those patents is to innovate new methods of doing things that cell phones do (which you can then patent). Make a new I/O method, etc. Or do you think we are at the end of the line for I/O, and 50 years from now we will still be using touch LED displays? I bet the real innovators are working on those things right now. And they will patent them.
Because prior to Google buying the IBM and Motorola patents they had nothing to offer. Why would Apple (or Microsoft, or Samsung, or anyone else) let Google just use their patents when Google has nothing of value to offer them? That is just throwing away money. Now that Google has something to offer they are in a better position to make such a deal.
Actually, if you think about it, they are doing the exact opposite of what you say. No-one is entering nine codes for turtle-related injuries anywhere. Instead, they create a category like 'Animal'. There are three codes for injuries caused by animals - bitten, struck by, and other. Then they list the animals, turtle being one of them. In addition to that, there are the three general codes for the doctor visit - initial, followup (subsequent), and chronic (sequela). Then, this amazing thing called a 'computer' magically combines the three 'animal' injuries (for animal == turtle) with the three visit codes, and magically you have nine codes.
As for knowing what code to apply - how difficult can it be to have a menu system that contains Animal->Turtle->Bite? Any decent piece of software could easily have another field (maybe a radio button or something) for the three visit reasons.
Why do they need to know that a turtle was involved? Well, different animals carry different diseases, don't they? This information is not used only for insurance purposes, it also goes to places like the CDC.
As the poster above you pointed out, no-one expects those codes to be used. They are simply an enumeration of codes and sub-codes, some of which don't make sense when put together. Did you ever play Mad Libs? It is kind of like that. Give me a random injury (burn) and random place where injury occurred (on water skis) and a catastrophe (fire). Yes, it is funny when you put them together, but it is not something normally done. However, there is nothing funny about 'Burn due to passenger ship on fire'.
I am not sure, but I don't think that the 'initial encounter' stuff means an initial encounter with water skis on fire, I think it means an initial encounter with the DOCTOR for that injury (vs a followup or chronic condition).
As for insurance companies needing to know that information: I agree that in most cases they don't need to know the information for a specific case (although there may be exceptions like auto accident and workplace accident that should be paid for by auto insurance or workmans comp). However, the aggregate of that information can be very valuable to insurers. For instance, if they see a significant number of injuries due to water skis on fire, they can start pushing for better fire suppression on water skis (yes, stupid example, but it is the one everyone is using). I know it is very popular on slashdot to say that the insurance companies only want to deny claims, but they would much rather not have the claims to deny in the first place. Ever wonder why Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) has that name?
Opera house is a place, not an injury or cause of injury. In both of your examples, the code for opera house would be used for the place of injury. There is nothing wrong with that. One of the injuries would also have 'broken left tibia' as the injury, and 'fall' as the reason for the injury. The other one of course would have different codes.
The codes are just a language used to describe things so that computers can easily search, categorize, etc. Once computers that can understand 'fell off balcony at opera' (like Watson) become pervasive we won't need special codes to replace natural language.
Not everything everyone does is some sign of inefficiency or stupidity.
Besides the utter hopelessness of actually making such a system work, your first idea does not get anyone 'free' music, it just means everyone has to pay, involuntarily, for every song released. No thanks. Makes no sense to try to distribute from different sites? How about - download from here so we don't have to pay taxes. And let's not forget this little scam - hey kiddies, download my latest song (even if you hate it) - don't worry - it's free!
Your second idea is equally as stupid. It doesn't make it so things are free from copyright if they don't make money, it just makes it impossible to make money. That would ensure that only the very richest people and corporations would be able to afford copyrights - exactly the opposite of what most people would want. The poor bastard who makes a couple hundred bucks a year in royalties from a song would have to give that up very quickly.
It wasn't humorous or sarcastic, just stupid. IF you can create a website that people are willing to pay for, and will still be willing to pay for in 50 years or so, you are perfectly free to do that. I hear there are a couple of young guys named Sergey and Larry that did something like that. The fact that you are personally incapable of creating something that people would find valuable now and into the future does not mean there are not other people who can do that.
If you make and sell ANYTHING that does not have a pre-signed sales agreement (ie any consumer good, from socks to music to cars to houses) you get paid only at the time of each sale. If nobody buys your product, you make no money. If your product stays popular for a hundred years (eg Coca-Cola) you continue earning money on it until people stop buying it. EXCEPT for copyrighted stuff, there are no limits on the amount of time you continue to earn money off your product, as long as people still want it.
Now, obviously individual factory workers don't get paid at sales time. They got paid when they did the work. Even if not a single item of the product they made gets sold they still get paid. They traded potential future riches for guaranteed income now. How many factory workers do you think would want to work where there is absolutely no guarantee they will ever be paid anything, in exchange for the possibility of getting more money later?
So far, no-one has proposed a single viable alternative to the current system. What is your brilliant solution?
You missed the 'we want to read' part. Further, how are we creating artificial scarcity of blogs and "the google"? The simple fact is, if you are content with the stuff you find on blogs and "the google", you can have as much of that as you want today. There is no scarcity. However, many people want professionally made stuff, and professionals want to be paid, and the 'artificial scarcity' is how we pay them.
What is your point? You don't believe that the prosecutor and police are both executive functions? They are. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is run by the Attorney General, who does the prosecutions.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the judiciary. It neither investigates nor prosecutes, it adjudicates.
How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law. Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear? If so, you are incredibly naive.
I don't really care if Starz appears as a monopoly to Netflix or not. My discussion of DVD buying and renting was meant to rebut the case that Netflix/Starz have some sort of monopoly on Disney movies as far as the consumer is concerned.
Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place. Netflix is perfectly capable of creating it's own content and not licensing that to Starz or Amazon if it so desires.
You are using loaded words like 'monopoly' and 'anti-trust' and 'abusing position' entirely inappropriately. First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry. No-one that is being discussed counts. No, having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever. Abuse of position occurs when you use your dominant position in one area to engage in anti-competitive behavior in another area. If Starz was the ONLY TV network, then it could abuse it's position by only allowing it's own content to be shown, locking out other studios.
Wow, a lot of bullshit in there, isn't there? Let's start with the "need to control" thing that has "crept in" to copyright. Yep, that is brand new alright. I mean there is nothing even vaguely like ability to control in this statement "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", is there? If 'exclusive Right' doesn't mean ability to control, what the hell does it mean?
Since all of the rest of your bullshit arguments stem from that error, they are all meaningless.
Why can't Netflix (or anyone else for that matter) make a deal directly with Disney? Other streaming services have done it. They didn't make the deal with Starz because the HAD to, they made it because they WANTED to, because it was cheaper and easier than making the deals with the individual studios. There are no characteristics of a monopoly in there anywhere at all.
The problem is that people are using the term 'monopoly' with some even going so far as suggesting government action for something that is in no way a monopoly. Let's take the example of a real monopoly - Standard Oil. Time was, if you wanted oil, you had no choice but to buy Standard Oil. Not if you wanted 'Esso Oil', or '93 octane gasoline', or 'oil delivered directly to my house', or anything like that. Just oil - all of it. They got that way by various means designed to eliminate any competitors, such as buying and dismantling them, pricing deals with railroads, etc. This meant it was virtually impossible to be in the oil business if you were not Standard Oil.
Now look at what we are talking about here: Are you complaining about Starz controlling the entire entertainment industry? No. The entire movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies industry? No (you can watch them on TV, buy or rent DVDs, etc). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet industry? (No, Amazon carries Disney/Pixar movies). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet on Netflix industry? Bingo!
And what anti-competitive actions did Starz take to cause their big monopoly? None. Netflix is free to negotiate their own deal with Disney, they just don't want to.
Yes, Disney has a monopoly on it's properties. Completely immaterial to the subject at hand. Your choice of Ford vs Toyota is exactly the same as Disney vs Universal. If you like one product more than the other, that is the one you want. And what the hell is a switching barrier? Do you mean that if you stream Disney movies there is some huge expense or technical thing preventing you from watching Universal movies? No - it is just a matter of your preference, and no-one is forced to make your wants a reality.
Please explain how one side has significantly less bargaining power in this case. If anything the consumer has way more power than Disney. Disney needs consumers. Consumers do not need Disney.
Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.
As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.
Why is spending an hour important? Some hotels (Caesars in Atlantic City for one) already have televisions in the bathroom mirrors. It's kind of nice to be able to get the weather report, sports scores, etc while you are brushing your teeth. It does have some drawbacks however. First, you have to use a remote control (in the bathroom, yuck) to change the channels. Secondly, chances of the things you want actually being aired at that moment are pretty slim. This seems like it would improve on both of them.
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
This is a simple case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price. If they can't agree, the deal is not done.
The 'R' in RAND means 'reasonable'. If you are trying to push me out of the business I invented, it is entirely reasonable that you are going to pay more for my stuff than others.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can do that now, and you consider it obvious, because you have used a cell phone. You have used/seen different types of cell phones. You doubtless have read countless articles on how they work. You know what components are used in them.
Now, go back 30 years and tell us that you could have come up with a Droid or iPhone then. Not just a general idea (little handheld-device that lets you do things), but an actual, working, Droid or iPhone or equivalent. Remember, there were no Li-ion batteries, no touch displays, no GSM, no ARM processors. Even supposedly simple stuff like magnets small enough and powerful enough to make a speaker you could hear didn't exist. No digital cameras. To get from where we were 30 years ago to where we are now took thousands and thousands of innovations, damn near all of them patented.
So yes, undeniably patents encourage innovation. Furthermore, as you said, if you implemented your 'obvious' cell phone you would be infringing on many patents. The way to avoid those patents is to innovate new methods of doing things that cell phones do (which you can then patent). Make a new I/O method, etc. Or do you think we are at the end of the line for I/O, and 50 years from now we will still be using touch LED displays? I bet the real innovators are working on those things right now. And they will patent them.
Because prior to Google buying the IBM and Motorola patents they had nothing to offer. Why would Apple (or Microsoft, or Samsung, or anyone else) let Google just use their patents when Google has nothing of value to offer them? That is just throwing away money. Now that Google has something to offer they are in a better position to make such a deal.
Actually, if you think about it, they are doing the exact opposite of what you say. No-one is entering nine codes for turtle-related injuries anywhere. Instead, they create a category like 'Animal'. There are three codes for injuries caused by animals - bitten, struck by, and other. Then they list the animals, turtle being one of them. In addition to that, there are the three general codes for the doctor visit - initial, followup (subsequent), and chronic (sequela). Then, this amazing thing called a 'computer' magically combines the three 'animal' injuries (for animal == turtle) with the three visit codes, and magically you have nine codes.
As for knowing what code to apply - how difficult can it be to have a menu system that contains Animal->Turtle->Bite? Any decent piece of software could easily have another field (maybe a radio button or something) for the three visit reasons.
Why do they need to know that a turtle was involved? Well, different animals carry different diseases, don't they? This information is not used only for insurance purposes, it also goes to places like the CDC.
As the poster above you pointed out, no-one expects those codes to be used. They are simply an enumeration of codes and sub-codes, some of which don't make sense when put together. Did you ever play Mad Libs? It is kind of like that. Give me a random injury (burn) and random place where injury occurred (on water skis) and a catastrophe (fire). Yes, it is funny when you put them together, but it is not something normally done. However, there is nothing funny about 'Burn due to passenger ship on fire'.
I am not sure, but I don't think that the 'initial encounter' stuff means an initial encounter with water skis on fire, I think it means an initial encounter with the DOCTOR for that injury (vs a followup or chronic condition).
As for insurance companies needing to know that information: I agree that in most cases they don't need to know the information for a specific case (although there may be exceptions like auto accident and workplace accident that should be paid for by auto insurance or workmans comp). However, the aggregate of that information can be very valuable to insurers. For instance, if they see a significant number of injuries due to water skis on fire, they can start pushing for better fire suppression on water skis (yes, stupid example, but it is the one everyone is using). I know it is very popular on slashdot to say that the insurance companies only want to deny claims, but they would much rather not have the claims to deny in the first place. Ever wonder why Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) has that name?
Opera house is a place, not an injury or cause of injury. In both of your examples, the code for opera house would be used for the place of injury. There is nothing wrong with that. One of the injuries would also have 'broken left tibia' as the injury, and 'fall' as the reason for the injury. The other one of course would have different codes.
The codes are just a language used to describe things so that computers can easily search, categorize, etc. Once computers that can understand 'fell off balcony at opera' (like Watson) become pervasive we won't need special codes to replace natural language.
Not everything everyone does is some sign of inefficiency or stupidity.
I think the official name for 'nuclear grade McPreservatives' is 'salt'.
I said 'viable', not bat-shit insane.
Besides the utter hopelessness of actually making such a system work, your first idea does not get anyone 'free' music, it just means everyone has to pay, involuntarily, for every song released. No thanks. Makes no sense to try to distribute from different sites? How about - download from here so we don't have to pay taxes. And let's not forget this little scam - hey kiddies, download my latest song (even if you hate it) - don't worry - it's free!
Your second idea is equally as stupid. It doesn't make it so things are free from copyright if they don't make money, it just makes it impossible to make money. That would ensure that only the very richest people and corporations would be able to afford copyrights - exactly the opposite of what most people would want. The poor bastard who makes a couple hundred bucks a year in royalties from a song would have to give that up very quickly.
It wasn't humorous or sarcastic, just stupid. IF you can create a website that people are willing to pay for, and will still be willing to pay for in 50 years or so, you are perfectly free to do that. I hear there are a couple of young guys named Sergey and Larry that did something like that. The fact that you are personally incapable of creating something that people would find valuable now and into the future does not mean there are not other people who can do that.
If you make and sell ANYTHING that does not have a pre-signed sales agreement (ie any consumer good, from socks to music to cars to houses) you get paid only at the time of each sale. If nobody buys your product, you make no money. If your product stays popular for a hundred years (eg Coca-Cola) you continue earning money on it until people stop buying it. EXCEPT for copyrighted stuff, there are no limits on the amount of time you continue to earn money off your product, as long as people still want it.
Now, obviously individual factory workers don't get paid at sales time. They got paid when they did the work. Even if not a single item of the product they made gets sold they still get paid. They traded potential future riches for guaranteed income now. How many factory workers do you think would want to work where there is absolutely no guarantee they will ever be paid anything, in exchange for the possibility of getting more money later?
So far, no-one has proposed a single viable alternative to the current system. What is your brilliant solution?
You missed the 'we want to read' part. Further, how are we creating artificial scarcity of blogs and "the google"? The simple fact is, if you are content with the stuff you find on blogs and "the google", you can have as much of that as you want today. There is no scarcity. However, many people want professionally made stuff, and professionals want to be paid, and the 'artificial scarcity' is how we pay them.
I think if you have PlayOn (Windows/Mac) you can use it to stream from Amazon to those devices.
I wasn't aware of the fact that we had eliminated the scarcity of authors who write things we want to read. When did that happen?
Now, why'd you go and say that? I want those kits now!
What is your point? You don't believe that the prosecutor and police are both executive functions? They are. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is run by the Attorney General, who does the prosecutions.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the judiciary. It neither investigates nor prosecutes, it adjudicates.
Click on 'Account' then 'Posting' and select 'Plain text' instead of HTML.
I am not talking about what some company can do, I am talking about what consumers can do. And you can stream them, Amazon does it.
How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law. Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear? If so, you are incredibly naive.
I don't really care if Starz appears as a monopoly to Netflix or not. My discussion of DVD buying and renting was meant to rebut the case that Netflix/Starz have some sort of monopoly on Disney movies as far as the consumer is concerned.
Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place. Netflix is perfectly capable of creating it's own content and not licensing that to Starz or Amazon if it so desires.
You are using loaded words like 'monopoly' and 'anti-trust' and 'abusing position' entirely inappropriately. First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry. No-one that is being discussed counts. No, having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever. Abuse of position occurs when you use your dominant position in one area to engage in anti-competitive behavior in another area. If Starz was the ONLY TV network, then it could abuse it's position by only allowing it's own content to be shown, locking out other studios.
Wow, a lot of bullshit in there, isn't there? Let's start with the "need to control" thing that has "crept in" to copyright. Yep, that is brand new alright. I mean there is nothing even vaguely like ability to control in this statement "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", is there? If 'exclusive Right' doesn't mean ability to control, what the hell does it mean?
Since all of the rest of your bullshit arguments stem from that error, they are all meaningless.
Why can't Netflix (or anyone else for that matter) make a deal directly with Disney? Other streaming services have done it. They didn't make the deal with Starz because the HAD to, they made it because they WANTED to, because it was cheaper and easier than making the deals with the individual studios. There are no characteristics of a monopoly in there anywhere at all.
The problem is that people are using the term 'monopoly' with some even going so far as suggesting government action for something that is in no way a monopoly. Let's take the example of a real monopoly - Standard Oil. Time was, if you wanted oil, you had no choice but to buy Standard Oil. Not if you wanted 'Esso Oil', or '93 octane gasoline', or 'oil delivered directly to my house', or anything like that. Just oil - all of it. They got that way by various means designed to eliminate any competitors, such as buying and dismantling them, pricing deals with railroads, etc. This meant it was virtually impossible to be in the oil business if you were not Standard Oil.
Now look at what we are talking about here: Are you complaining about Starz controlling the entire entertainment industry? No. The entire movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies industry? No (you can watch them on TV, buy or rent DVDs, etc). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet industry? (No, Amazon carries Disney/Pixar movies). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet on Netflix industry? Bingo!
And what anti-competitive actions did Starz take to cause their big monopoly? None. Netflix is free to negotiate their own deal with Disney, they just don't want to.
Yes, Disney has a monopoly on it's properties. Completely immaterial to the subject at hand. Your choice of Ford vs Toyota is exactly the same as Disney vs Universal. If you like one product more than the other, that is the one you want. And what the hell is a switching barrier? Do you mean that if you stream Disney movies there is some huge expense or technical thing preventing you from watching Universal movies? No - it is just a matter of your preference, and no-one is forced to make your wants a reality.
Please explain how one side has significantly less bargaining power in this case. If anything the consumer has way more power than Disney. Disney needs consumers. Consumers do not need Disney.
Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.
As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.
Why is spending an hour important? Some hotels (Caesars in Atlantic City for one) already have televisions in the bathroom mirrors. It's kind of nice to be able to get the weather report, sports scores, etc while you are brushing your teeth. It does have some drawbacks however. First, you have to use a remote control (in the bathroom, yuck) to change the channels. Secondly, chances of the things you want actually being aired at that moment are pretty slim. This seems like it would improve on both of them.
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
This is a simple case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price. If they can't agree, the deal is not done.
The 'R' in RAND means 'reasonable'. If you are trying to push me out of the business I invented, it is entirely reasonable that you are going to pay more for my stuff than others.