Yes, I agree that IP isn't the only means by which the innovator can be rewarded in every case. However, in most situations, it is terribly necessary. Regardless, IP is the status quo, and there are few, to no, empirical counter-examples of success without it. Every nation which has appropriated IP has fallen behind.
While I'm well aware that Linux, Apache, Perl, and a couple other IP-less products have enjoyed relative success, I don't view them as even approaching proof of IP-free environment. They are orders of magnitude less involved than the likes of Intel's microprocessors. They truely aren't breaking any new ground. In short, the bulk of the development is handled by people working in their part time--the product of which has never terribly impressed me.
The bottom line is that the onus lies on you to prove an IP-less environment is viable, let alone desirable. You have yet to even do this theoretically. I, on the other hand, have first have knowledge of some important industries (i.e., biotech, medical devices, etc.) where the obliteration of IP as you specified would cause great harm. If the most you can give is an abstract argument with flaws for one industry, it really is not terribly realistic of you to expect me to agree.
This comes down to numbers, not just ideas. Pull out a calculator and do the math.
Uh, no. I'm sorry, but I happen to be in a related industry, medical devices. What you say is largly myth and misinterpretation.
A) It is not as if these universities are robbed of their work. They mostly SELL it. The marketplace IS competetive, but that inititial research is just 1/10th the battle and is only worth so much.
B) While the NYT may have quoted 20%, or even 40%, these numbers are easily distorted. If they aggregated the dollar figure of drug research and applied it against the whole industry, they'd get a scewed number. These programs are generally poorly run, they don't know their head from their ass. I know much of the money tends to go to professional academics who make their life burning through research money, not to the drug companies (though they do get some). Likewise, the universities are RESEARCH oriented and are totally inept when it comes to taking real risk and developing a viable product. Much of their "product" is frankly crap. They don't have what it takes to develop them, even though many of them are extremely wealthy. They bleed money because of this. Of both government and university research (which is payed through government dollars frequently) the drug, biotech, and medical device companies will cherry pick what little viable research is of some use. To then say government and universities spent 5b this year developing drugs, drug co's spent 25b, therefore government and universities are responsibile for 20% of research....well that'd simply be ridiculous. I can tell you from experience almost every dollar that counts comes from industry, not academia or government agencies.
B) Bringing a drug to market is extremely expensive, marketing aside. Believe it. Between FDA requirements. Proving effectiveness. Animal testing. etc...it all adds up very rapidly. Not to mention the various liability costs. The costs of paying human subjects. Lab facilities.
C) You neglect to mention that they're also in an extremely risky and volatile market. Those profit margins are necessary to obtain investment and to acquire debt, they're not nearly so high when compared to companies such as Intel, who have somewhat similar economics.
D) It's not a zero sum game. They generate viable products where others tend to fail. These in turn generate taxable revenue. Share holder wealth, which is again taxed. Employee wealth...etc. In short, I'd rather see MORE dollars going to these companies than less.
Your first two points would be better directed at the author of the post I was replying to, who chose the example of Intel and AMD. I was simply pointing out that chip manufacturers possess a lot more than their static IP portfolios - they are in a fast-moving field where a 6-month R&D lead is a substantial advantage, and they have enormous manufacturing assets which, as you point out, keep smaller companies from competing effectively with them.
1) You are assuming that because it is true in the current situation that if Intel were to go to sleep for 6 months, they would get clobbered by the likes of AMD, that it must also be true that any technology older than 6 months is worthless. This simply isn't the case. Hence I see serious flaws in that it never occurs to you that perhaps Intel makes technological investments that extend beyond your 6 month window. There are numerous situations where this is the case!
2) Intel is a large company. But, without decent IP protection, who is to say the larger and better capitalized company couldn't come along and rape them? I could see someone like Microsoft finding it perhaps advantageous to prevent Intel from developing non-PC chips that might turn the market against. They may even be willing to do it at a loss!
"As long as that edge exists there will be innovation in the semiconductor industry."
This seems largely a baseless assertion to me. If you don't know what it costs you really can't say this. If you don't know the technology, you really can't say this. Furthermore, merely having an "edge" is not enough. It goes back to risk and reward. If you cut into an already thin market, by "liberating" technology, you may be cutting the market off at the head. That ~2% may just be enough to make the industry totally unprofitable for ANY innovator, thereby draining any and all serious R&D dollars.
As to the technological side of things, there are many innovations which are visible in the product and relatively easy to mimick (certainly cheaper than doing the R&D yourself). There are many issues in product design, where you'll look at the product and say "duh, that's obvious". But 3 months before you couldn't do it no matter how hard you tried. Even if you spent most of that time and effort spinning your wheels, that doesn't mean the competition didn't either. They took risk. You will curb the reward by allowing all out copying.
As for your arguments against IP, I think you overstate your case, whether or not you know it. There is more than one way to skin a rabbit. In many industries, simply proving that a thing can be done, or the creation of a market is sufficient to bring about further innovation. So while that patent may grant exclusive use to the holder, it does not, in reality offer the protection it claims, nor does it hold back meaningfull progress. Which is another very important reason why it can be terribly important to maximize profits while possible.
Intel is just ONE company in ONE section of ONE industry. There are hundreds of vastly different, but equally tricky, industries. But I've yet to hear you give an accurate depiction of even one.....
Uh, this is severely flawed logic (otherwise known as a copout excuse) on your part! Sure, the artist may no longer "own" the song, but the artist did own it before. The fact is is that the artist chose to sell it of his own free will, whether directly or indirectly. By denying the purchaser the right to profit from the song as they see fit, you are reducing the value of any future songs that the artist may choose to make.
The fact of the matter here is that most of these artists enter into these contracts entirely voluntarily. It is not as if ANYONE is putting a gun to their head. What you see is the result of the choices of a rational human being (artist) who is looking out for his own well being. The choice boils down to: a) Sign the contract and get "screwed" by only recieving a fraction of the profits, but still get rich. b) Try to be greedy, go/stay Indy or whatever, and never sell enough records to turn a profit. Despite Napster, mp3.com, and your other theories, the people right there on the front lines, the artists, still choose A overwhelmingly.
There may be some truth to the fact that there is something of a lock on the industry. On the other hand, I know, as in so many other areas on slashdot, the users fail to see the bigger economic picture. The fact that the labels take risks too totally escapes them.
Don't just look at the profits on the individual CDs, look at their profits on the aggregate! How many albums are winners? How many are loosers? Promotional costs? Distribution? These aren't niggardly concerns, they matter to the artist too.
It's fine and good to say "competition works." Everyone likes "competition", just like no politician is against kids. Unfortunately, life is not nearly so simple.
Sometimes you need to actually think things through, and ask yourself tough questions that no amount of impassioned slogans can banish. Even after such deliberations, each individual result isn't always going to be pleasing. Instead you must take the long view, and look at the results on the aggregate. You must ask yourself: What is the greater good?
Sure we can all find examples of failure in any system, be it capitalism or socialism. This is not to say, however, that they're both equals. Anyone with half a brain who scrutinizes them will arrive at the conclusion that socialism fails miserably.
I can't possibly hope to prove to you in this time and space that the current situation (IP) is light years better than your proposal, no intellectual property. What you need is hard won experience to shake your darling notion of "competition." To that end, I shall cast some serious doubt on your specific example.
First, and foremost, your example of the semi-conductor industry is a very poor one. as it's terribly productive. Why is it that chip speed doubles time you bat your eye? In how many other industries do you see this same amount of R&D spending? How is it that you can on one hand claim Intel is massively holding the industry back, while on the other assert that 6 months in such a long time? I grant you, Intel isn't perfect. They're definetly somewhat anti-competetive. Their chip designs are even somewhat mediocre in some areas. On the other hand, and most importantly, they serve the consumer very very well. They've been continually producing fast chips at affordable prices, a combination of which most consumers obviously find preferable to any of the generics.
Secondly, your notion of the industry itself is way way offbase. You don't just build CPUs that can compete against Intel on whim, it's a very very expensive propostion--billions of dollars. It simply doens't scale well to the generics you allude to. Even the smallest competitor to Intel today requires hundreds of millions in cash and other liquid assets for just one such attempt. Completely ignoring the research angle, developing a manufacturable chip is an entirely different game. The point here being, that your generics are completely mythical. If anything, if an intel could survive an IP-less environment, their massive wealth would give them a huge advantage over even the smartest of small competitors. Intel could snatch their IP and get the ball rolling before the competition even acquired the necessary capital. Where is the incentive for the little guy, when they can just freeride on good ole' Intel.
Third, while it is true that 6 months is a long time in the computer industry, it's not everything. They don't reinvent the entire wheel every 6 months. Many of their patents 5+ years old are still terribly valuable today, from the manufacturing process to development to the chip itself. In other words, 6 months is not necessarily (in fact, it is not) a sufficient window of profitability to encourage Intel to take spend the money here.
Fourth, have you ever heard the word economies of scale? Even if your idea came to fruition somewhat they way you wish, where 6 months is sufficient. A splintering into many different competitors would absolutely kill the market. Because of the high fixed costs involved here, every competitor needs a large share of the market to hope to offer even remotely competetive pricing. In other words, since developing the technology and building the plants and machinery costs hundreds of millions (and even billions), if they only sell a hundred thousand, they could not survive. The chips could never be sold for that the necessary amount, and they'd need to sell more of them. The only reason modern Intel chips are as cheap as they are is because of huge economies of scale, as in millions. Only a small fraction of most of Intel's sale represent profits--not exactly fitting for the monopoly you seem to be implying.
Fifth, the concerns over southeast asia's approach to IP have nothing to do with domestic (their bread and butter) fear for their IP. Where piracy is rappant all companies that rely on IP lose a market (that country). You are mistaken if you think these companies can really export IP violating products en masse to more developed nations. Even if they could, your statement that they could "outcompete" the US is totally foolish, because they're simply not, and they've been brazenly violating IP for some time now.
Last, but not least, you are basically completely failing to calculate risk versus reward here. You don't understand the scale of development. You don't understand how much money they spend on R&D. You don't understand their current profit margins on the aggregate. You need to look at how much is actually coming back to the investor. Proportionally speaking it's not the least bit unreasonable when weighed against the risk. You don't understand manufacturing. In short, you don't know the high tech industry, never mind semiconductors.
By destroying IP, you'd destroy the already thin margins in the industry, not just in the semiconductor industry, but most every high, pharma, and biotech business.
First: Gates has only started donating to charity very recently--long after he become the richest man in the world. Some might even argue that this is an attempt to soften his image. In Seattle, only a few short years ago he was famously stingy--with everyone.
Secondly: Yes, Gates is the founder of a company that writes checks to thousands of people. But does this fact alone mean that his contribution is a positive one? If you take the position, like me, that Gates is, in fact, a monopoly, you would certainly not see it this way. Gates didn't create the "computer revolution" through some genius. Gates rode it. Worse yet, by stiffling competition, he's significantly reduced everyone's wealth (except for MS's of course).
Lastly: I agree with you that it is foolish to paint things in black and white; atleast to the extent that it blinds you and lessens your ability to fight back. This does not mean, however, that people don't do selfish, greedy, and immoral things.
In the case of Gates, I don't think his intentions are malicious per se. Rather, I think his actions are selfishly motivated, actions that many humans might commit in the same situation. What's more, I believe that Gates actually believes a lot of the stuff he says...I've seen it before in others. When you start to lie enough, and repeat it to yourself enough, it becomes truth to you.
You way way overestimate the power of slashdot. Granted, it is a fairly sizable population. But it is not one which producers will spend millions of dollars developing for; slashdot is simply too small. Even "geeks and freaks" are obviously not their prime target here, this movie has definite mainstream appeal, and it has nothing to do with social injustice. X-Men is fundamentally an action movie. That is what is bringing the dollars in, I assure you.
True, but isn't that the point? Katz is capable of neither concise writing, nor meaningfull writing, thus he continually rehashes any previously uttered sentiment with "horrifically long" articles.
Ok first and formost, what you call "survival" was really barely subsistence living. Secondly, their survival rates were very low by all accounts. Thirdly, 4 hours a day is way off the mark, most every respected authority points to a dawn to dusk work ritual, with perhaps a few breaks. In addition, beyond what we supposedly "know" about them, just look at the actually documented primitive societies of today and the recent past (i.e., 200 years or so). I assure you, no where will you find any society like what you mention. Unless you assume these societies to be actually less developed, you're simply mistaken. What do you think a society with this much free time would do with themselves? Make art? Where is the evidence? Granted, they didn't have much in the way of tools or metals, but we've found very little, if any, evidence of leisure activity.
If this hunter gather lifestyle is really so easy, why do you see people in India and the like starving in metropolisis when their is all this food abound outside of them? You think you just pick it off the trees? No, sorry. Food is scarce, even with modern technology, it takes farming to even approximate what you see today.
Anyways, the bottom line is that you're way way off the mark. Generally speaking, people are pretty rational beings. If there is a lifestyle that requires less work and yields greater happiness, people would flock to it.
Understand this basic reality, and you might come to further appreciate modern advances.
Did you hear the call my little calfs? The becon for differentiation? Oh slashdot Juniors, do you yern to be different? Then follow Katz and have safety in numbers. Oh yes, he "sparks discussion" very well, but hey, so did Hitler.
In all seriousness though, I'm no fan of these franchises, but who am I, or any individual to dictate to the rest of the world? Does the mere dislike of McDonalds entitle me to destroy it? I think not. America was founded based on sensible laws aimed to achieve the greatest good. They strove to strike a balance between the individual and society at large. Jose's actions are a direct strike against that. We are a nation of laws and process. You may not always like the outcome, but remember that process is far better than the alternative, anarchy. Furthermore, remember that you are just one individual; for every one of you, there may be many others who feel differently.
This is yet another thoughtless thread by Katz. Katz is not some great thought proking journalist. Quite the contrary, he's a shallow inflamatory scribbler from the left. You would get much the same affect if you brought in someone like Rush Limbaugh (sic?) from the right. But that is not the point. Is it? Sure, you get discussion, but you don't promote intelligent discussion that way. I really don't much care to see 1000 flames. Slashdot's management seems to confuse quantity, the volume of discussion, with quality. The problem is that Slashdot's revenues are currently being driven by quantity, they simply don't care.
The only solution is to simply turn Katz off (yes, I know, I'm obviously reading this one, but I typically dont) and let slashdot know why. Perhaps when the slashdot juniors tire of these worthless threads, we may see something better.
Uh? Drivers? Cord not plugged in? Cord plugged into the wrong port? Cord forced into the wrong port? Broken pins on cord? Bad connection? Corrosion? User keeps on pulling mouse loose? Broken cord? I've seen all of these, they're not as rare as you might believe. A wireless mouse may add some unavoidable complication, but it's mostly nominal. I see no reason why a properly designed mouse with decent software (i.e., show battery and signal levels, I know my wireless logitech mouse does) should be drastically harder to resolve the vast majority of issues on. Yes, you may occasionally get interference, but (on a well designed mouse) there aren't what 99.99% of the calls are going to be about, and you know it.
I just bought one for myself. They're great in many ways (all except for two ridiculous side buttons, and the dodgy cord) But there are quite a few surfaces that they simply dont work at all on. For example, it doesn't work on _my_ current desktop, which is a piece of glass over white whicker. Instead, I have to use a nice flat textured mouse pad. Nonetheless, it is still a significant improvement because the tracking is more accurate and more reliable. This is a particularly important feature for those, like me, who prefer high sensitivity, where that skittish jumping isn't just a few hairs, but half the screen.
Such a move would hardly be benefial to Microsoft's shareholders. Canada has significantly higher taxes, on both the corporation and its employees. This means Microsoft would probably need to raise their salaries to compensate for the difference, such that they could remain competetive. In addition, Microsoft would face a whole bunch of other costs, such as covering for employee relocation (in some form or another), Canada's employment law, legal costs, physical moving costs, associated downtimes, etc. On top of all these costs, this move wouldn't even really help them insofar as the antitrust case goes. Even if it would allow them to escape prosection on their non-US products (which is probably unlikely), the situation in the US would either worsen or remain the same.
On the other hand, if Microsoft where to stay, even the worst of the proposed penalties actually wouldn't be all that hard on the share holder (despite MS's assertions to the contrary). In any case, when I guestimate the incremental costs between moving or staying (and facing breakup), I'd have to stay. I suspect most share holders would realize this too; Microsoft's board would be begging for a shareholder lawsuit. Even if Bill Gates may want to stick it to the US, or even if MS may try to use it to put pressure on the DoJ, I just don't see it happening.
My only real concern is Microsoft using this with some sucess to pressure the government to backoff.
I, for one, value my time more than I value that sort of privacy. While I can understand some people are upset about DoubleClick's actions, that does not somehow make it terribly relevant for everyone. So you think DoubleClick stinks? Good. Filter them. Hurt them where it counts, in their pocketbooks. But if I have to spend the amount of time you spend dealing with it, I'd rather not, because I have bigger fish to fry.
Furthermore, I have occasionally analyzed my packets, and generally evaluated the situation. I know full well what information they can gather on me, and what they can not. There is no further benefit to be had by me analyzing my packets regularly. I know the furthest extent of what they CAN do; the only thing you do is confirm that they ARE doing it. Why bother? Anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time worrying about this type of crap probably isn't a terribly worthwhile customer anyhow.
Does that extra worry help you much? No. Does it hurt DoubleClick much? No. In other words, you're spinning your wheels.
I, on the other hand, as a worthwhile customer, can wield quite a bit more influence simply by choosing to not deal with certain organizations or websites. If enough people like me start giving them the finger, then action might be taken.
The bottom line is that your efforts are largely wasted. What you're saying is nothing new, and the incremental costs for DoubleClick are slim to none. IFF you care about this as much as you claim, I suggest you pursue alternative methods. Such as joining the rest of society, and spending your dollars elsewhere, or making a persuasive argument (for other worthwhile customers) other than the proverbial "fuck you".
While I'm not a big fan of DoubleClick, nor do I follow their business intensely, this panel isn't necessarily a complete sham. First, more information doesn't necessarily equal increased revenues. There are many situations where collecting a particular piece of information is essentially worthless, yet it can stand to do a great deal of PR damage (possibly resulting in a push away from DoubleClick). For instance, if DoubleClick provided a profile on some website's users, say, SomeAIDSvictimsDiscussionSite.com, there would be little way for them to profit (legally and safely), yet it still exposes them to major liability and PR damage. If such a panel could steer them clear of situations like that, it would be worthwhile for both parties. Second, I question michael's "research" as to these particular members.
He may very well be right, they may all be creeps. But just because he writes a line or two about their supposed 'evilness', doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because DoubleClick makes money through the creation of marketing databases, doesn't mean each additional unit of information is profitable for them. One might very well look at this board and say, Ok, we have: A lawyer (to advise on legal issues), and gaggle of people who've lobbied for reasonable advertizing and privacy restrictions....A relatively well rounded board (on the surface atleast) to advise a CORPORATION on what they can, and should, realistically do.
Granted, insofar as "beaming" (the process where it supposedly verifies that you have the CD or atleast all the data) the CDs goes, bandwidth concerns are nominal. On the other end, usage and downloading, though bandwidth clearly affects the worth of the method relative to the worth of alternative methods of piracy (e.g., ripping and encoding at home) and/or purchasing. As far as I've seen, my.mp3.com doesn't actually offer to let you download the tracks, however it would be all too trivial hack a client to save those streams to a file. If you're on 28.8, you can't listen to "your" high quality mp3s in real time (on my cable modem, I actually find I can get music faster than many CD players can ever seek the next track...and certainly where the user must search for the CD). Likewise, if you're on 28.8, "beaming" and downloading (with the hack) a CD in mp3, may be slower than ripping and encoding the CD on your own system (obviously contingent on your CDROM, processor speed, and realized network bandwidth). That being said, this does not mean it is useless as a piracy tool for modem users. First, if there are technical vulnerabilities in my.mp3.com's protocol (which I'm quite sure there are actually), the user can gain access to a very large collection of mp3s archived in an excellent fashion, far more CDs than he could ever hope to put his paws on in person, or even over the napster, and other similar methods). Second, if my* is vulnerable, the user may find it preferable to just setup his machine to download an infinite number of mp3s while he is not there (even though it is slower than his actually burning it by hand while he is attending to it) (e.g., while he sleeps, is at classes, work, etc.)
As for broadband, atleast on my connection, with the CDs I have access to (not necessarily own!), it is a joy to use all-around; it is far far easier and faster than ripping and encoding by hand. Combined with an exploit against this database, broadband users could pirate from my.mp3.com at, say, 100x the efficiency of other means.
I believe in intellectual property. If an artist makes music, the artist should be free to declare whatever terms on its use he wants. As it stands right now, the current legal interpretation of copyright law defines most of your rights in regards to their music. In other words, we must assume the artist is selling his work under a set of terms and conditions, which is generally known as copyright law. If you violate these terms, the artist may or may not be incentivized to continue creating work as he was before.
The artists can (and do) transfer their rights to the label. While it may seem "unfair" and "unnecessary" for the labels to shut down services like my.mp3.com, the service does, in fact, violate the labels' rights, and can consequently erode value of the artists' rights. If the labels' rights were entirely intact (and consequently the artists'), they might be enabled to sell a second digtal copy--my.mp3.com denies them this right. Similarly, the growth of my.mp3.com through the violation of the labels' rights, could marginalize the market position (not necessarily monopoly) of the labels. The artists could potentially use this as a bargaining chip, but my.mp3.com strips them of this. Likewise, due to technological flaws, my.mp3.com may, in fact, make piracy and far far more trivial, and the denial of the labels' right to control the distribution may negatively impact their profits. For example, I can borrow CDs from all my friends, hundreds of them, and gain access to all of the mp3's of those CDs in an hour or two with a cheap computer on broadband--No other technology enables this to be done so quickly and efficiently (e.g., nominal ripping (reading) time, no encoding, no storage space, etc.), not tape, not VCR, etc. I realize you, Katz, are no technological wonderkid, but I also have real doubts about the security of the my.mp3.com services insofar as internet piracy (as opposed to CD distribution amongst friends) goes, so it does not entirely follow that just because beam-it, my.mp3.com's client software, is challenged by the server to produce samples of the CD, that the user actually has the CD in their drive at the moment, or even an equivelent sized chunk of data.
The bottom line is that you should assume the artist is releasing his work under the current understanding of copyright law, and all that it implies. Unless the artist grants you that right to do otherwise, you are simply not entitled to do whatever you wish, no matter how just you may feel your reasoning to be. Any violation of the copyright law has concievable consequences, thus we generally don't leave it up to the individual to decide. If we, as a society, choose that it would be better to weaken copyrights across the board such that a single purchase in any format entitles you to get the work in any other format, and that it is ok for 3rd parties to provide that alternative medium service at a profit, that is acceptable. Until such time, however, we should respect the law.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not BAs fault. It's the Mans!
The EU is far far worse. Try Germany, France....
Yes, I agree that IP isn't the only means by which the innovator can be rewarded in every case. However, in most situations, it is terribly necessary. Regardless, IP is the status quo, and there are few, to no, empirical counter-examples of success without it. Every nation which has appropriated IP has fallen behind.
While I'm well aware that Linux, Apache, Perl, and a couple other IP-less products have enjoyed relative success, I don't view them as even approaching proof of IP-free environment. They
are orders of magnitude less involved than the likes of Intel's microprocessors. They truely aren't breaking any new ground. In short, the bulk of the development is handled by people working in their part time--the product of which has never terribly impressed me.
The bottom line is that the onus lies on you to prove an IP-less environment is viable, let alone desirable. You have yet to even do this theoretically. I, on the other hand, have first have knowledge of some important industries (i.e., biotech, medical devices, etc.) where the obliteration of IP as you specified would cause great harm. If the most you can give is an abstract argument with flaws for one industry, it really is not terribly realistic of you to expect me to agree.
This comes down to numbers, not just ideas. Pull out a calculator and do the math.
Uh, no. I'm sorry, but I happen to be in a related industry, medical devices. What you say is largly myth and misinterpretation.
A) It is not as if these universities are robbed of their work. They mostly SELL it. The marketplace IS competetive, but that inititial research is just 1/10th the battle and is only worth so much.
B) While the NYT may have quoted 20%, or even 40%, these numbers are easily distorted. If they aggregated the dollar figure of drug research and applied it against the whole industry, they'd get a scewed number. These programs are generally poorly run, they don't know their head from their ass. I know much of the money tends to go to professional academics who make their life burning through research money, not to the drug companies (though they do get some). Likewise, the universities are RESEARCH oriented and are totally inept when it comes to taking real risk and developing a viable product. Much of their "product" is frankly crap. They don't have what it takes to develop them, even though many of them are extremely wealthy. They bleed money because of this. Of both government and university research (which is payed through government dollars frequently) the drug, biotech, and medical device companies will cherry pick what little viable research is of some use. To then say government and universities spent 5b this year developing drugs, drug co's spent 25b, therefore government and universities are responsibile for 20% of research....well that'd simply be ridiculous. I can tell you from experience almost every dollar that counts comes from industry, not academia or government agencies.
B) Bringing a drug to market is extremely expensive, marketing aside. Believe it. Between FDA requirements. Proving effectiveness. Animal testing. etc...it all adds up very rapidly. Not to mention the various liability costs. The costs of paying human subjects. Lab facilities.
C) You neglect to mention that they're also in an extremely risky and volatile market. Those profit margins are necessary to obtain investment and to acquire debt, they're not nearly so high when compared to companies such as Intel, who have somewhat similar economics.
D) It's not a zero sum game. They generate viable products where others tend to fail. These in turn generate taxable revenue. Share holder wealth, which is again taxed. Employee wealth...etc. In short, I'd rather see MORE dollars going to these companies than less.
1) You are assuming that because it is true in the current situation that if Intel were to go to sleep for 6 months, they would get clobbered by the likes of AMD, that it must also be true that any technology older than 6 months is worthless. This simply isn't the case. Hence I see serious flaws in that it never occurs to you that perhaps Intel makes technological investments that extend beyond your 6 month window. There are numerous situations where this is the case!
2) Intel is a large company. But, without decent IP protection, who is to say the larger and better capitalized company couldn't come along and rape them? I could see someone like Microsoft finding it perhaps advantageous to prevent Intel from developing non-PC chips that might turn the market against. They may even be willing to do it at a loss!
This seems largely a baseless assertion to me. If you don't know what it costs you really can't say this. If you don't know the technology, you really can't say this. Furthermore, merely having an "edge" is not enough. It goes back to risk and reward. If you cut into an already thin market, by "liberating" technology, you may be cutting the market off at the head. That ~2% may just be enough to make the industry totally unprofitable for ANY innovator, thereby draining any and all serious R&D dollars.
As to the technological side of things, there are many innovations which are visible in the product and relatively easy to mimick (certainly cheaper than doing the R&D yourself). There are many issues in product design, where you'll look at the product and say "duh, that's obvious". But 3 months before you couldn't do it no matter how hard you tried. Even if you spent most of that time and effort spinning your wheels, that doesn't mean the competition didn't either. They took risk. You will curb the reward by allowing all out copying.
As for your arguments against IP, I think you overstate your case, whether or not you know it. There is more than one way to skin a rabbit. In many industries, simply proving that a thing can be done, or the creation of a market is sufficient to bring about further innovation. So while that patent may grant exclusive use to the holder, it does not, in reality offer the protection it claims, nor does it hold back meaningfull progress. Which is another very important reason why it can be terribly important to maximize profits while possible.
Intel is just ONE company in ONE section of ONE industry. There are hundreds of vastly different, but equally tricky, industries. But I've yet to hear you give an accurate depiction of even one.....
Uh, this is severely flawed logic (otherwise known as a copout excuse) on your part! Sure, the artist may no longer "own" the song, but the artist did own it before. The fact is is that the artist chose to sell it of his own free will, whether directly or indirectly. By denying the purchaser the right to profit from the song as they see fit, you are reducing the value of any future songs that the artist may choose to make.
The fact of the matter here is that most of these artists enter into these contracts entirely voluntarily. It is not as if ANYONE is putting a gun to their head. What you see is the result of the choices of a rational human being (artist) who is looking out for his own well being. The choice boils down to: a) Sign the contract and get "screwed" by only recieving a fraction of the profits, but still get rich. b) Try to be greedy, go/stay Indy or whatever, and never sell enough records to turn a profit. Despite Napster, mp3.com, and your other theories, the people right there on the front lines, the artists, still choose A overwhelmingly.
There may be some truth to the fact that there is something of a lock on the industry. On the other hand, I know, as in so many other areas on slashdot, the users fail to see the bigger economic picture. The fact that the labels take risks too totally escapes them.
Don't just look at the profits on the individual CDs, look at their profits on the aggregate! How many albums are winners? How many are loosers? Promotional costs? Distribution? These aren't niggardly concerns, they matter to the artist too.
I wasn't replying to you, I double checked. Your browser is most likely FUBAR or you've got your slashdot preferences in some wierd mode.
It's fine and good to say "competition works." Everyone likes "competition", just like no politician is against kids. Unfortunately, life is not nearly so simple.
Sometimes you need to actually think things through, and ask yourself tough questions that no amount of impassioned slogans can banish. Even after such deliberations, each individual result isn't always going to be pleasing. Instead you must take the long view, and look at the results on the aggregate. You must ask yourself: What is the greater good?
Sure we can all find examples of failure in any system, be it capitalism or socialism. This is not to say, however, that they're both equals. Anyone with half a brain who scrutinizes them will arrive at the conclusion that socialism fails miserably.
I can't possibly hope to prove to you in this time and space that the current situation (IP) is light years better than your proposal, no intellectual property. What you need is hard won experience to shake your darling notion of "competition." To that end, I shall cast some serious doubt on your specific example.
First, and foremost, your example of the semi-conductor industry is a very poor one. as it's terribly productive. Why is it that chip speed doubles time you bat your eye? In how many other industries do you see this same amount of R&D spending? How is it that you can on one hand claim Intel is massively holding the industry back, while on the other assert that 6 months in such a long time? I grant you, Intel isn't perfect. They're definetly somewhat anti-competetive. Their chip designs are even somewhat mediocre in some areas. On the other hand, and most importantly, they serve the consumer very very well. They've been continually producing fast chips at affordable prices, a combination of which most consumers obviously find preferable to any of the generics.
Secondly, your notion of the industry itself is way way offbase. You don't just build CPUs that can compete against Intel on whim, it's a very very expensive propostion--billions of dollars. It simply doens't scale well to the generics you allude to. Even the smallest competitor to Intel today requires hundreds of millions in cash and other liquid assets for just one such attempt. Completely ignoring the research angle, developing a manufacturable chip is an entirely different game. The point here being, that your generics are completely mythical. If anything, if an intel could survive an IP-less environment, their massive wealth would give them a huge advantage over even the smartest of small competitors. Intel could snatch their IP and get the ball rolling before the competition even acquired the necessary capital. Where is the incentive for the little guy, when they can just freeride on good ole' Intel.
Third, while it is true that 6 months is a long time in the computer industry, it's not everything. They don't reinvent the entire wheel every 6 months. Many of their patents 5+ years old are still terribly valuable today, from the manufacturing process to development to the chip itself. In other words, 6 months is not necessarily (in fact, it is not) a sufficient window of profitability to encourage Intel to take spend the money here.
Fourth, have you ever heard the word economies of scale? Even if your idea came to fruition somewhat they way you wish, where 6 months is sufficient. A splintering into many different competitors would absolutely kill the market. Because of the high fixed costs involved here, every competitor needs a large share of the market to hope to offer even remotely competetive pricing. In other words, since developing the technology and building the plants and machinery costs hundreds of millions (and even billions), if they only sell a hundred thousand, they could not survive. The chips could never be sold for that the necessary amount, and they'd need to sell more of them. The only reason modern Intel chips are as cheap as they are is because of huge economies of scale, as in millions. Only a small fraction of most of Intel's sale represent profits--not exactly fitting for the monopoly you seem to be implying.
Fifth, the concerns over southeast asia's approach to IP have nothing to do with domestic (their bread and butter) fear for their IP. Where piracy is rappant all companies that rely on IP lose a market (that country). You are mistaken if you think these companies can really export IP violating products en masse to more developed nations. Even if they could, your statement that they could "outcompete" the US is totally foolish, because they're simply not, and they've been brazenly violating IP for some time now.
Last, but not least, you are basically completely failing to calculate risk versus reward here. You don't understand the scale of development. You don't understand how much money they spend on R&D. You don't understand their current profit margins on the aggregate. You need to look at how much is actually coming back to the investor. Proportionally speaking it's not the least bit unreasonable when weighed against the risk. You don't understand manufacturing. In short, you don't know the high tech industry, never mind semiconductors.
By destroying IP, you'd destroy the already thin margins in the industry, not just in the semiconductor industry, but most every high, pharma, and biotech business.
Oh yes, and you know these government dollars just bear so much fruit for humanity. Give me a f*****ing break!
First: Gates has only started donating to charity very recently--long after he become the richest man in the world. Some might even argue that this is an attempt to soften his image. In Seattle, only a few short years ago he was famously stingy--with everyone.
Secondly: Yes, Gates is the founder of a company that writes checks to thousands of people. But does this fact alone mean that his contribution is a positive one? If you take the position, like me, that Gates is, in fact, a monopoly, you would certainly not see it this way. Gates didn't create the "computer revolution" through some genius. Gates rode it. Worse yet, by stiffling competition, he's significantly reduced everyone's wealth (except for MS's of course).
Lastly: I agree with you that it is foolish to paint things in black and white; atleast to the extent that it blinds you and lessens your ability to fight back. This does not mean, however, that people don't do selfish, greedy, and immoral things.
In the case of Gates, I don't think his intentions are malicious per se. Rather, I think his actions are selfishly motivated, actions that many humans might commit in the same situation. What's more, I believe that Gates actually believes a lot of the stuff he says...I've seen it before in others. When you start to lie enough, and repeat it to yourself enough, it becomes truth to you.
enough said.
You way way overestimate the power of slashdot. Granted, it is a fairly sizable population. But it is not one which producers will spend millions of dollars developing for; slashdot is simply too small. Even "geeks and freaks" are obviously not their prime target here, this movie has definite mainstream appeal, and it has nothing to do with social injustice. X-Men is fundamentally an action movie. That is what is bringing the dollars in, I assure you.
Slashdot. Where the "geeks" are sycophantic posters, and grown-ups just stay away.
Or perhaps he just wants to milk this sacred cow for all it is worth?
Hmmm, let's see here:
a) One untalented writer
b) Thousands of young, impressionable, and immature "geeks"
What's a spineless hack to do? Perhaps sell to these kiddies who'd gleefully swallow anything that "speaks" to them. Blah.
...I tire of all this apologetic crap. Nothing is simply wrong, misguided, or even manipulative these days.
True, but isn't that the point? Katz is capable of neither concise writing, nor meaningfull writing, thus he continually rehashes any previously uttered sentiment with "horrifically long" articles.
Ok first and formost, what you call "survival" was really barely subsistence living. Secondly, their survival rates were very low by all accounts. Thirdly, 4 hours a day is way off the mark, most every respected authority points to a dawn to dusk work ritual, with perhaps a few breaks. In addition, beyond what we supposedly "know" about them, just look at the actually documented primitive societies of today and the recent past (i.e., 200 years or so). I assure you, no where will you find any society like what you mention. Unless you assume these societies to be actually less developed, you're simply mistaken. What do you think a society with this much free time would do with themselves? Make art? Where is the evidence? Granted, they didn't have much in the way of tools or metals, but we've found very little, if any, evidence of leisure activity.
If this hunter gather lifestyle is really so easy, why do you see people in India and the like starving in metropolisis when their is all this food abound outside of them? You think you just pick it off the trees? No, sorry. Food is scarce, even with modern technology, it takes farming to even approximate what you see today.
Anyways, the bottom line is that you're way way off the mark. Generally speaking, people are pretty rational beings. If there is a lifestyle that requires less work and yields greater happiness, people would flock to it.
Understand this basic reality, and you might come to further appreciate modern advances.
Did you hear the call my little calfs? The becon for differentiation? Oh slashdot Juniors, do you yern to be different? Then follow Katz and have safety in numbers. Oh yes, he "sparks discussion" very well, but hey, so did Hitler.
In all seriousness though, I'm no fan of these franchises, but who am I, or any individual to dictate to the rest of the world? Does the mere dislike of McDonalds entitle me to destroy it? I think not. America was founded based on sensible laws aimed to achieve the greatest good. They strove to strike a balance between the individual and society at large. Jose's actions are a direct strike against that. We are a nation of laws and process. You may not always like the outcome, but remember that process is far better than the alternative, anarchy. Furthermore, remember that you are just one individual; for every one of you, there may be many others who feel differently.
This is yet another thoughtless thread by Katz. Katz is not some great thought proking journalist. Quite the contrary, he's a shallow inflamatory scribbler from the left. You would get much the same affect if you brought in someone like Rush Limbaugh (sic?) from the right. But that is not the point. Is it? Sure, you get discussion, but you don't promote intelligent discussion that way. I really don't much care to see 1000 flames. Slashdot's management seems to confuse quantity, the volume of discussion, with quality. The problem is that Slashdot's revenues are currently being driven by quantity, they simply don't care.
The only solution is to simply turn Katz off (yes, I know, I'm obviously reading this one, but I typically dont) and let slashdot know why. Perhaps when the slashdot juniors tire of these worthless threads, we may see something better.
Uh? Drivers? Cord not plugged in? Cord plugged into the wrong port? Cord forced into the wrong port? Broken pins on cord? Bad connection? Corrosion? User keeps on pulling mouse loose? Broken cord? I've seen all of these, they're not as rare as you might believe. A wireless mouse may add some unavoidable complication, but it's mostly nominal. I see no reason why a properly designed mouse with decent software (i.e., show battery and signal levels, I know my wireless logitech mouse does) should be drastically harder to resolve the vast majority of issues on. Yes, you may occasionally get interference, but (on a well designed mouse) there aren't what 99.99% of the calls are going to be about, and you know it.
I just bought one for myself. They're great in many ways (all except for two ridiculous side buttons, and the dodgy cord) But there are quite a few surfaces that they simply dont work at all on. For example, it doesn't work on _my_ current desktop, which is a piece of glass over white whicker. Instead, I have to use a nice flat textured mouse pad. Nonetheless, it is still a significant improvement because the tracking is more accurate and more reliable. This is a particularly important feature for those, like me, who prefer high sensitivity, where that skittish jumping isn't just a few hairs, but half the screen.
Such a move would hardly be benefial to Microsoft's shareholders. Canada has significantly higher taxes, on both the corporation and its employees. This means Microsoft would probably need to raise their salaries to compensate for the difference, such that they could remain competetive. In addition, Microsoft would face a whole bunch of other costs, such as covering for employee relocation (in some form or another), Canada's employment law, legal costs, physical moving costs, associated downtimes, etc. On top of all these costs, this move wouldn't even really help them insofar as the antitrust case goes. Even if it would allow them to escape prosection on their non-US products (which is probably unlikely), the situation in the US would either worsen or remain the same.
On the other hand, if Microsoft where to stay, even the worst of the proposed penalties actually wouldn't be all that hard on the share holder (despite MS's assertions to the contrary). In any case, when I guestimate the incremental costs between moving or staying (and facing breakup), I'd have to stay. I suspect most share holders would realize this too; Microsoft's board would be begging for a shareholder lawsuit. Even if Bill Gates may want to stick it to the US, or even if MS may try to use it to put pressure on the DoJ, I just don't see it happening.
My only real concern is Microsoft using this with some sucess to pressure the government to backoff.
Hahah, whatever kid. You're probably just a troll, but if not, grab a clue.
I, for one, value my time more than I value that sort of privacy. While I can understand some people are upset about DoubleClick's actions, that does not somehow make it terribly relevant for everyone. So you think DoubleClick stinks? Good. Filter them. Hurt them where it counts, in their pocketbooks. But if I have to spend the amount of time you spend dealing with it, I'd rather not, because I have bigger fish to fry.
Furthermore, I have occasionally analyzed my packets, and generally evaluated the situation. I know full well what information they can gather on me, and what they can not. There is no further benefit to be had by me analyzing my packets regularly. I know the furthest extent of what they CAN do; the only thing you do is confirm that they ARE doing it. Why bother? Anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time worrying about this type of crap probably isn't a terribly worthwhile customer anyhow.
Does that extra worry help you much? No. Does it hurt DoubleClick much? No. In other words, you're spinning your wheels.
I, on the other hand, as a worthwhile customer, can wield quite a bit more influence simply by choosing to not deal with certain organizations or websites. If enough people like me start giving them the finger, then action might be taken.
The bottom line is that your efforts are largely wasted. What you're saying is nothing new, and the incremental costs for DoubleClick are slim to none. IFF you care about this as much as you claim, I suggest you pursue alternative methods. Such as joining the rest of society, and spending your dollars elsewhere, or making a persuasive argument (for other worthwhile customers) other than the proverbial "fuck you".
While I'm not a big fan of DoubleClick, nor do I follow their business intensely, this panel isn't necessarily a complete sham. First, more information doesn't necessarily equal increased revenues. There are many situations where collecting a particular piece of information is essentially worthless, yet it can stand to do a great deal of PR damage (possibly resulting in a push away from DoubleClick). For instance, if DoubleClick provided a profile on some website's users, say, SomeAIDSvictimsDiscussionSite.com, there would be little way for them to profit (legally and safely), yet it still exposes them to major liability and PR damage. If such a panel could steer them clear of situations like that, it would be worthwhile for both parties. Second, I question michael's "research" as to these particular members.
He may very well be right, they may all be creeps. But just because he writes a line or two about their supposed 'evilness', doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because DoubleClick makes money through the creation of marketing databases, doesn't mean each additional unit of information is profitable for them. One might very well look at this board and say, Ok, we have: A lawyer (to advise on legal issues), and gaggle of people who've lobbied for reasonable advertizing and privacy restrictions....A relatively well rounded board (on the surface atleast) to advise a CORPORATION on what they can, and should, realistically do.
Granted, insofar as "beaming" (the process where it supposedly verifies that you have the CD or atleast all the data) the CDs goes, bandwidth concerns are nominal. On the other end, usage and downloading, though bandwidth clearly affects the worth of the method relative to the worth of alternative methods of piracy (e.g., ripping and encoding at home) and/or purchasing. As far as I've seen, my.mp3.com doesn't actually offer to let you download the tracks, however it would be all too trivial hack a client to save those streams to a file. If you're on 28.8, you can't listen to "your" high quality mp3s in real time (on my cable modem, I actually find I can get music faster than many CD players can ever seek the next track...and certainly where the user must search for the CD). Likewise, if you're on 28.8, "beaming" and downloading (with the hack) a CD in mp3, may be slower than ripping and encoding the CD on your own system (obviously contingent on your CDROM, processor speed, and realized network bandwidth). That being said, this does not mean it is useless as a piracy tool for modem users. First, if there are technical vulnerabilities in my.mp3.com's protocol (which I'm quite sure there are actually), the user can gain access to a very large collection of mp3s archived in an excellent fashion, far more CDs than he could ever hope to put his paws on in person, or even over the napster, and other similar methods). Second, if my* is vulnerable, the user may find it preferable to just setup his machine to download an infinite number of mp3s while he is not there (even though it is slower than his actually burning it by hand while he is attending to it) (e.g., while he sleeps, is at classes, work, etc.)
As for broadband, atleast on my connection, with the CDs I have access to (not necessarily own!), it is a joy to use all-around; it is far far easier and faster than ripping and encoding by hand. Combined with an exploit against this database, broadband users could pirate from my.mp3.com at, say, 100x the efficiency of other means.
I believe in intellectual property. If an artist makes music, the artist should be free to declare whatever terms on its use he wants. As it stands right now, the current legal interpretation of copyright law defines most of your rights in regards to their music. In other words, we must assume the artist is selling his work under a set of terms and conditions, which is generally known as copyright law. If you violate these terms, the artist may or may not be incentivized to continue creating work as he was before.
The artists can (and do) transfer their rights to the label. While it may seem "unfair" and "unnecessary" for the labels to shut down services like my.mp3.com, the service does, in fact, violate the labels' rights, and can consequently erode value of the artists' rights. If the labels' rights were entirely intact (and consequently the artists'), they might be enabled to sell a second digtal copy--my.mp3.com denies them this right. Similarly, the growth of my.mp3.com through the violation of the labels' rights, could marginalize the market position (not necessarily monopoly) of the labels. The artists could potentially use this as a bargaining chip, but my.mp3.com strips them of this. Likewise, due to technological flaws, my.mp3.com may, in fact, make piracy and far far more trivial, and the denial of the labels' right to control the distribution may negatively impact their profits. For example, I can borrow CDs from all my friends, hundreds of them, and gain access to all of the mp3's of those CDs in an hour or two with a cheap computer on broadband--No other technology enables this to be done so quickly and efficiently (e.g., nominal ripping (reading) time, no encoding, no storage space, etc.), not tape, not VCR, etc. I realize you, Katz, are no technological wonderkid, but I also have real doubts about the security of the my.mp3.com services insofar as internet piracy (as opposed to CD distribution amongst friends) goes, so it does not entirely follow that just because beam-it, my.mp3.com's client software, is challenged by the server to produce samples of the CD, that the user actually has the CD in their drive at the moment, or even an equivelent sized chunk of data.
The bottom line is that you should assume the artist is releasing his work under the current understanding of copyright law, and all that it implies. Unless the artist grants you that right to do otherwise, you are simply not entitled to do whatever you wish, no matter how just you may feel your reasoning to be. Any violation of the copyright law has concievable consequences, thus we generally don't leave it up to the individual to decide. If we, as a society, choose that it would be better to weaken copyrights across the board such that a single purchase in any format entitles you to get the work in any other format, and that it is ok for 3rd parties to provide that alternative medium service at a profit, that is acceptable. Until such time, however, we should respect the law.