I'm not the most knowledgable person on the subject of genes in the universe, but it seems to me that this article is not actually talking about patenting genes that necessarily occur in humans. It's just talking about granting patents to synthesized genes, which may or may not occur in humans. Basically, the simpler the gene is (less combinations of amino acids), the more likely it is to occur in humans. To solve both that issue, and the idea that patents on genes that are too simple may cripple further research, I'd suggest that guidelines be drawn to specify how complex a gene must be before it is patentable. Also, companies should be encouraged to search for methods of synthesis for, and also practical applications of their genes, and to patent those instead of the genes themselves.
I would imagine that the tax structure would make this not worth the bother. Typically, the longer you hold a stock, the less taxes you pay when you sell it. Of course, this is balanced against the taxes you pay just for owning the stock in the first place.. In any event, I'm wondering how many people who are now eligible for 15% reduction in cost of MS stock actually have the capital to do anything about it? I doubt that there's enough that it's gonna justify MS's big schmeal over the whole deal.
You'd be thoroughly surprised how easy this is if you live in Seattle. It's like an monster - it sucks people in during the summer, chews on them during the fall, and spits out the bones of those who can't endure they greyest city in the US in the winter. The rest fall in love with the city, figure out which coffee roaster makes the best espresso to be wired on, choose which microbrew suits them best, and gets a geek job at one of the myriad of tech oriented companies here, finding other geeks with common interests in the process. I must say, Seattle & it's surroundings (including Redmond) could be taken as a definite working model of a geek attractor.
AS someone else said in a previous discussion on this topic, the problem lies in the patent system, not in a company's use of a patent that shouldn't have been granted. You know damn sure your competitor isn't going to decide not to sue you over a clear patent infringement due to their high sense of ideals, so, as part of your responsibility to your shareholders, you must exercise and affirm your money-making patents whenever you believe you can successfully prosecute your case against a major competitor. I fully agree that, as I understand it, the patent itself is stupid and should never, ever have been granted, but a high profile corporation has very little choice when it comes down to whether to use such a patent once granted. You might as well sue, 'cuz it's the only way you're going to get ahead against all the lawsuits against you.
Does anyone have any good links to info on the patent lawsuit in question in the first place? Someone said today that they had thought the lawsuit was concerning the name only, not the technology behind it, although I guess that would be a copyright issue, not a patent one. Anyways, still interested.
I think it's quite strange that, as far as the tech community goes, some of the worst press Amazon.com in general, and certainly Jeff Bezos in partical has ever received is the decision by Time magazine to inflict the moronic "Man of the Year" award on him. Do you think perhaps Jeff called Time up, and said "Listen, Bob. You make me man of the year, and I'll give you and all of your friends a 40% discount on DVD's, and free shipping!". Yeah, right. I basically agree with most of the tech crowd on the point of the patent lawsuit against B&N - Thou shalt not store customer info in cookies because yea verily I hath done it first? TOTAL BS, but that's corporate America for you. The folks in Amazon's legal department probably subscribe to the eat or be eaten philosophy of business, because those corporations that don't (didn't) have long since been naturally selected out of the corporate gene pool. Is this justification for the personal attacks on JB? He was the diabolical mastermind behind the patent thing, right? Suuuuuure he was! He's also considering hiring Elvis as director of PR!
Personally, the number one reason that I have seen people be apparently bitter about Jeff Bezos being "Man of the year" for is that Linus Torvalds, or anyone associated with any kind of hard technology, isn't.
Clue stick! That's funny! if you could market that, you'd make millions! Property taxes in Washington are pretty high too, but I don't know how they compare to Oregon. The sales tax is something like 8.5%, which, as a fringe benefit, tends to make otherwise mathematically incompetent people such as myself rather talented at multiplying integers by.08..
Anyways, I'm not really certain which is better necessarily in the sales tax vs. income tax debate, though paying sales tax is at least quite a bit easier than figuring out income taxes twice (so long as you don't have an unhealthy obsession with avoiding metal change), but I can definitely agree that it would truly suck to have both! So far as I know, Washington hasn't even tried in recent history to impose a state income tax on it's residents.
Not really certain exactly what you mean by "more profitable" in this case. Even if the profit margin is theoretically higher for OS/apps, it'll all come down to volume eventually, and there is a far higher volume potential in generic online retailing then there is in OS/apps development. Especially considering the advances you can expect to see as far as online sales to international markets. Amazon's market cap is not justified by it's volume presently, but by expectations for what that volume COULD be if Amazon plays it's cards right. There has never been a better chance for one company to take control of such a large share of such a potentially huge market, and this is what drives investors to take the risk. Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see...
Not really stupid from EVERYONE'S point of view (North Carolina doesn't want to do it because they like changing their tax forms, eh?), just currently an administrative nightmare and virtually impossible to enforce. Good thing too, for my part!
Simple answer there. In Oregon, where there is no sales tax, you instead get screwed by having to deal with not only a federal but a STATE income tax. In Washington, there's a ridiculously high sales tax, but no state income tax at all. What does this mean? It means that Washington punishes heavy-duty consumers (hear hear! Clap clap clap!), whereas Oregon punishes everyone equally. How American! Love it! Oh, and it also means that between Thanksgiving and Christmas hordes of Washingtonians make that commute to Portland and gleefully spend their non-state taxable income on non sales-taxable goods. What a deal!
I'm hardly a financial genius, but here's one thought: When you walk into a store in your local strip mall/parking lot growth laboratory, and purchase the latest Pokemon or acceptable substitute, You probably pay sales tax (dependant upon the policies of each individual state. Oregon, for example, has no point of sale tax). This money then goes to the state to make life better and brighter not only for nice suit wearing "I'm honest, honest" politicios, but, so the idea goes, for "You", the Consumer, and "They", the Businessmen who sold you Pokemon rev. 2.4.01. So. the distinction here is that when you buy from an online retailer, There is already a tax markup for the state in which they are incorporated. For example, Amazon.com pays taxes to Delaware, even if it is primarily in my home state, Washington. So now, let us count the ways in which you are getting screwed by North Carolina. Once again, excuse my ignorance of actual North Carolinan tax policies. You might very well pay income tax to NC as well as to the federal goverment. This is the "getting screwed coming" part. So now you buy this hot, must-have, 20% markdown fad item from Amazon.com, and in doing so pay sales tax to the magnificent state of Delaware, which you've probably only thought about 3 times in your entire life. This accounts for the "getting screwed going" section of murphy's tax law. Now, as if that wasn't enough, North Carolina slaps it's own happy little version of an intra-state customs tax on your hot little gift item. The net result? You get to examine your deep, innermost feelings about being screwed coming and going, and then being screwed coming back again!
Congratulations, North Carolina. Did you know that Kewpiemons are at a 20% markdown right now? Buy immediately!
Something to point out here: For one thing, the ubiquity of the Gates/Bezos comparison is in and of itself practically a validation of the public perception that Bezos is someone to be watching. Bezos, like Gates, has, through radical (some might say "innovative", but that's so trite, right?) business practices created a very high profile corporation from a garage based company.
(Side note: The story goes that Bezos called up Shel Kaphan, CTO & employee #2 from his garage and said something to the effect of "Your hired - I'm building you a desk right now. Come over, 'k?")
What, currently, is the difference between Gates & Bezos, realistically? Bill has had more time to consolidate his hold on both the market he has chosen to compete in and public attention. Bill, like Jeff, took huge risks to accomplish big ambitions. Bill, unlike Jeff, has had close to 20 years to see these plans come to fruition. If you don't think that there is as much or more money in online retailing as there is in operating systems & desktop application development, you need to do some more homework. Wait and see is my take on it, but I'm optomistic.
Listen - I work tech support at Amazon.com, and though I don't necessarily agree with all of the bullshit that is spewed out from the all-knowing corporate mouth, remember that Jeff Bezos is NOT Amazon.com. The gurus in legal have as much or more to do with any patent stupidity as Jeff, and Amazon's official take, even when spiced up with a few of Jeff's words, is brought to you by the grace of a PR department, just as in any other large scale corporation.
Personally, I find the whole idea of a "man of the year" to be basically moronic, but, having met Jeff, I don't see why he doesn't fit the bill as well as anyone else. Whether or not you agree with his business practices, they have achieved a very high profile state due both to how unusual they are and just plain old media hype. Personally, Jeff was VERY cool, super-intelligent, and not at all holier-than-thou. He has an active sense of humor, and is really interested in pretty much anything (not just money, eh?), including obscure technical stuff like public key encryption and the relative benefits of IMAP vs. POP mail configuration. And before you go off about how unprofitable Amazon.com is, take a look at the borg factor: How much of that unprofitability is due to infrastructure overhead & direct business expenses, and how much is due to rapid expansion and business acquisition. Relative to what things'll be like 10 years from now, it's a hysterically open field, full of opportunities that are only going to do a corporation any good if they are acted upong NOW, not later when the pie has been fully divvied up and eaten. Do I philosophically agree with big corporation money gobbling madness? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Too much focus of power in a small group of individuals opens the door for major uncoolness, but conversely makes it possible to achieve some truly excellent things. How long is your wait time when you call Amazon customer service? Did the right item appear at the right address on time in good condition? Probable answers: Very short, and yes. Can other companies STILL promise delivery before Christmas? Definite answer: No.
Aye, I know, this grows lengthy. In short, all I'm trying to say is:
A: Amazon may or may not succeed in the long run, but no other competing company is even close in terms of foreseeable potential. Of course it's a gamble. It's a volatile market in unexplored business territory. The payoff, however, stands to be huge.
B: No, Amazon is not built entirely on ideals of co-prosperity and friendship between competitors. Yes, Amazon is capable of exerting muscle in questionable ways to consolidate it's hold on online retailing. Is this worse than what other companies in it's position would do? Almost certainly not. Amazon.com is exciting, it's cool, it's a great place to work (they put up with my bullshit, right?), but it IS a megagoliath money hungry corporation, with all that entails. Get real, don't expect Mother Theresa.
C: Jeff Bezos is cool. If you ever met him, you'd probably be much more zen about having him as (I still think the very concept is stupid) Time Magazine's man of the year.
Please forgive length of message. Brain eaten by moths.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the most knowledgable person on the subject of genes in the universe, but it seems to me that this article is not actually talking about patenting genes that necessarily occur in humans. It's just talking about granting patents to synthesized genes, which may or may not occur in humans. Basically, the simpler the gene is (less combinations of amino acids), the more likely it is to occur in humans. To solve both that issue, and the idea that patents on genes that are too simple may cripple further research, I'd suggest that guidelines be drawn to specify how complex a gene must be before it is patentable. Also, companies should be encouraged to search for methods of synthesis for, and also practical applications of their genes, and to patent those instead of the genes themselves.
Still not going to have much of a profit here, 'cuz now you're paying interest on the loan as well as taxes when selling the options..
I would imagine that the tax structure would make this not worth the bother. Typically, the longer you hold a stock, the less taxes you pay when you sell it. Of course, this is balanced against the taxes you pay just for owning the stock in the first place.. In any event, I'm wondering how many people who are now eligible for 15% reduction in cost of MS stock actually have the capital to do anything about it? I doubt that there's enough that it's gonna justify MS's big schmeal over the whole deal.
You'd be thoroughly surprised how easy this is if you live in Seattle. It's like an monster - it sucks people in during the summer, chews on them during the fall, and spits out the bones of those who can't endure they greyest city in the US in the winter. The rest fall in love with the city, figure out which coffee roaster makes the best espresso to be wired on, choose which microbrew suits them best, and gets a geek job at one of the myriad of tech oriented companies here, finding other geeks with common interests in the process. I must say, Seattle & it's surroundings (including Redmond) could be taken as a definite working model of a geek attractor.
AS someone else said in a previous discussion on this topic, the problem lies in the patent system, not in a company's use of a patent that shouldn't have been granted. You know damn sure your competitor isn't going to decide not to sue you over a clear patent infringement due to their high sense of ideals, so, as part of your responsibility to your shareholders, you must exercise and affirm your money-making patents whenever you believe you can successfully prosecute your case against a major competitor. I fully agree that, as I understand it, the patent itself is stupid and should never, ever have been granted, but a high profile corporation has very little choice when it comes down to whether to use such a patent once granted. You might as well sue, 'cuz it's the only way you're going to get ahead against all the lawsuits against you.
Does anyone have any good links to info on the patent lawsuit in question in the first place? Someone said today that they had thought the lawsuit was concerning the name only, not the technology behind it, although I guess that would be a copyright issue, not a patent one. Anyways, still interested.
I think it's quite strange that, as far as the tech community goes, some of the worst press Amazon.com in general, and certainly Jeff Bezos in partical has ever received is the decision by Time magazine to inflict the moronic "Man of the Year" award on him. Do you think perhaps Jeff called Time up, and said "Listen, Bob. You make me man of the year, and I'll give you and all of your friends a 40% discount on DVD's, and free shipping!". Yeah, right. I basically agree with most of the tech crowd on the point of the patent lawsuit against B&N - Thou shalt not store customer info in cookies because yea verily I hath done it first? TOTAL BS, but that's corporate America for you. The folks in Amazon's legal department probably subscribe to the eat or be eaten philosophy of business, because those corporations that don't (didn't) have long since been naturally selected out of the corporate gene pool. Is this justification for the personal attacks on JB? He was the diabolical mastermind behind the patent thing, right? Suuuuuure he was! He's also considering hiring Elvis as director of PR!
Personally, the number one reason that I have seen people be apparently bitter about Jeff Bezos being "Man of the year" for is that Linus Torvalds, or anyone associated with any kind of hard technology, isn't.
Clue stick! That's funny! if you could market that, you'd make millions! Property taxes in Washington are pretty high too, but I don't know how they compare to Oregon. The sales tax is something like 8.5%, which, as a fringe benefit, tends to make otherwise mathematically incompetent people such as myself rather talented at multiplying integers by .08..
Anyways, I'm not really certain which is better necessarily in the sales tax vs. income tax debate, though paying sales tax is at least quite a bit easier than figuring out income taxes twice (so long as you don't have an unhealthy obsession with avoiding metal change), but I can definitely agree that it would truly suck to have both! So far as I know, Washington hasn't even tried in recent history to impose a state income tax on it's residents.
It's a reference from startrek (and no, I do not possess a starfleet uniform). It's an acronym standing for Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations.
Ah, IDIC, right? I wonder if he just lays around and slurps up houseflies for a living?
Say.. On that note, I wonder if I could get PAID for laying around slurping up houseflies for a living! Hmmmmm.. Food (--- Arghhh!) for thought!
Not really certain exactly what you mean by "more profitable" in this case. Even if the profit margin is theoretically higher for OS/apps, it'll all come down to volume eventually, and there is a far higher volume potential in generic online retailing then there is in OS/apps development. Especially considering the advances you can expect to see as far as online sales to international markets. Amazon's market cap is not justified by it's volume presently, but by expectations for what that volume COULD be if Amazon plays it's cards right. There has never been a better chance for one company to take control of such a large share of such a potentially huge market, and this is what drives investors to take the risk. Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see...
Not really stupid from EVERYONE'S point of view (North Carolina doesn't want to do it because they like changing their tax forms, eh?), just currently an administrative nightmare and virtually impossible to enforce. Good thing too, for my part!
Simple answer there. In Oregon, where there is no sales tax, you instead get screwed by having to deal with not only a federal but a STATE income tax. In Washington, there's a ridiculously high sales tax, but no state income tax at all. What does this mean? It means that Washington punishes heavy-duty consumers (hear hear! Clap clap clap!), whereas Oregon punishes everyone equally. How American! Love it! Oh, and it also means that between Thanksgiving and Christmas hordes of Washingtonians make that commute to Portland and gleefully spend their non-state taxable income on non sales-taxable goods. What a deal!
I'm hardly a financial genius, but here's one thought: When you walk into a store in your local strip mall/parking lot growth laboratory, and purchase the latest Pokemon or acceptable substitute, You probably pay sales tax (dependant upon the policies of each individual state. Oregon, for example, has no point of sale tax). This money then goes to the state to make life better and brighter not only for nice suit wearing "I'm honest, honest" politicios, but, so the idea goes, for "You", the Consumer, and "They", the Businessmen who sold you Pokemon rev. 2.4.01. So. the distinction here is that when you buy from an online retailer, There is already a tax markup for the state in which they are incorporated. For example, Amazon.com pays taxes to Delaware, even if it is primarily in my home state, Washington.
So now, let us count the ways in which you are getting screwed by North Carolina. Once again, excuse my ignorance of actual North Carolinan tax policies. You might very well pay income tax to NC as well as to the federal goverment. This is the "getting screwed coming" part. So now you buy this hot, must-have, 20% markdown fad item from Amazon.com, and in doing so pay sales tax to the magnificent state of Delaware, which you've probably only thought about 3 times in your entire life. This accounts for the "getting screwed going" section of murphy's tax law. Now, as if that wasn't enough, North Carolina slaps it's own happy little version of an intra-state customs tax on your hot little gift item. The net result? You get to examine your deep, innermost feelings about being screwed coming and going, and then being screwed coming back again!
Congratulations, North Carolina. Did you know that Kewpiemons are at a 20% markdown right now? Buy immediately!
Something to point out here: For one thing, the ubiquity of the Gates/Bezos comparison is in and of itself practically a validation of the public perception that Bezos is someone to be watching. Bezos, like Gates, has, through radical (some might say "innovative", but that's so trite, right?) business practices created a very high profile corporation from a garage based company.
(Side note: The story goes that Bezos called up Shel Kaphan, CTO & employee #2 from his garage and said something to the effect of "Your hired - I'm building you a desk right now. Come over, 'k?")
What, currently, is the difference between Gates & Bezos, realistically? Bill has had more time to consolidate his hold on both the market he has chosen to compete in and public attention. Bill, like Jeff, took huge risks to accomplish big ambitions. Bill, unlike Jeff, has had close to 20 years to see these plans come to fruition. If you don't think that there is as much or more money in online retailing as there is in operating systems & desktop application development, you need to do some more homework. Wait and see is my take on it, but I'm optomistic.
Listen - I work tech support at Amazon.com, and though I don't necessarily agree with all of the bullshit that is spewed out from the all-knowing corporate mouth, remember that Jeff Bezos is NOT Amazon.com. The gurus in legal have as much or more to do with any patent stupidity as Jeff, and Amazon's official take, even when spiced up with a few of Jeff's words, is brought to you by the grace of a PR department, just as in any other large scale corporation.
Personally, I find the whole idea of a "man of the year" to be basically moronic, but, having met Jeff, I don't see why he doesn't fit the bill as well as anyone else. Whether or not you agree with his business practices, they have achieved a very high profile state due both to how unusual they are and just plain old media hype. Personally, Jeff was VERY cool, super-intelligent, and not at all holier-than-thou. He has an active sense of humor, and is really interested in pretty much anything (not just money, eh?), including obscure technical stuff like public key encryption and the relative benefits of IMAP vs. POP mail configuration. And before you go off about how unprofitable Amazon.com is, take a look at the borg factor: How much of that unprofitability is due to infrastructure overhead & direct business expenses, and how much is due to rapid expansion and business acquisition. Relative to what things'll be like 10 years from now, it's a hysterically open field, full of opportunities that are only going to do a corporation any good if they are acted upong NOW, not later when the pie has been fully divvied up and eaten. Do I philosophically agree with big corporation money gobbling madness? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Too much focus of power in a small group of individuals opens the door for major uncoolness, but conversely makes it possible to achieve some truly excellent things. How long is your wait time when you call Amazon customer service? Did the right item appear at the right address on time in good condition? Probable answers: Very short, and yes. Can other companies STILL promise delivery before Christmas? Definite answer: No.
Aye, I know, this grows lengthy. In short, all I'm trying to say is:
A: Amazon may or may not succeed in the long run, but no other competing company is even close in terms of foreseeable potential. Of course it's a gamble. It's a volatile market in unexplored business territory. The payoff, however, stands to be huge.
B: No, Amazon is not built entirely on ideals of co-prosperity and friendship between competitors. Yes, Amazon is capable of exerting muscle in questionable ways to consolidate it's hold on online retailing. Is this worse than what other companies in it's position would do? Almost certainly not. Amazon.com is exciting, it's cool, it's a great place to work (they put up with my bullshit, right?), but it IS a megagoliath money hungry corporation, with all that entails. Get real, don't expect Mother Theresa.
C: Jeff Bezos is cool. If you ever met him, you'd probably be much more zen about having him as (I still think the very concept is stupid) Time Magazine's man of the year.
Please forgive length of message. Brain eaten by moths.