Drug addicts? Use the previously mentioned tax money on education and rehab programs. Even a hefty tax on the drugs would still leave them at a lower cost than street drugs.
Even without taxes, the money now spent on the War and keeping users and small time dealers in prisions would probably more than pay for those programs.
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
Or, it means wages will be finally more expensive than machines (see the US manufacturing) and they'll make the same gadgets without exploiting anyone but without paying anyone either.
Oh, and before someone accuses me of rationalizing to justify my toys, I don't need to since I can't afford them anyway. I have a used Nokia and a cheap laptop - no iPhone, Android, tablet, kindle or console.
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
Except that alternative is worse for the workers, who already have the option of not working at those factories and, funnily enough, they don't actually prefer it.
Your solution helps your moral guilty at their expense. For shame.
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA.
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
* VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
Your post was confusing. You start by saying that "open-sourced software that offer open API (...) are far and few in between" and then you talk about GIMP, it gives the impression you're giving an example of one of those open-sourced softwares that don't offer open APIs.
Your example is great, because that's exactly the point. Like an electrical plug, to be open an API doesn't need to be merely documented - it has to be a standard. Anything with a single implementation is not and can never be a standard, and therefore it's not open.
No, we mustn't assume anything, because TFA (the one who claims open APIs are "open enough") links the term to the Wikipedia page with a definition of open source.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
Then you have to get a Symbian S60 phone. They show dialogs request for permissions as the app needs them, not upfront. For example, I can launch Opera Mini and I have to give it network access, but I'm only asked for filesystem access (not with this name, of course) when I download some file.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you actually justifying taking risks by giving drunk driving and cheating as examples?
Why tar when you can rsync?
*prenup. (From prenuptial).
Drug addicts? Use the previously mentioned tax money on education and rehab programs. Even a hefty tax on the drugs would still leave them at a lower cost than street drugs.
Even without taxes, the money now spent on the War and keeping users and small time dealers in prisions would probably more than pay for those programs.
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
Or, it means wages will be finally more expensive than machines (see the US manufacturing) and they'll make the same gadgets without exploiting anyone but without paying anyone either.
Not very likely? It's already happening...
Oh, and before someone accuses me of rationalizing to justify my toys, I don't need to since I can't afford them anyway. I have a used Nokia and a cheap laptop - no iPhone, Android, tablet, kindle or console.
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
Except that alternative is worse for the workers, who already have the option of not working at those factories and, funnily enough, they don't actually prefer it.
Your solution helps your moral guilty at their expense. For shame.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
Are you saying there's a short supply of idiots? Because my experience says otherwise.
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA.
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
* VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
Your post was confusing. You start by saying that "open-sourced software that offer open API (...) are far and few in between" and then you talk about GIMP, it gives the impression you're giving an example of one of those open-sourced softwares that don't offer open APIs.
Your example is great, because that's exactly the point. Like an electrical plug, to be open an API doesn't need to be merely documented - it has to be a standard. Anything with a single implementation is not and can never be a standard, and therefore it's not open.
GIMP does have open APIs. They have less plugins because they have less users.
No, we mustn't assume anything, because TFA (the one who claims open APIs are "open enough") links the term to the Wikipedia page with a definition of open source.
Greed? How do they get more money by refusing patients? You don't make any sense.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
Well, if you just download it, that's fine, but if you're using Bittorrent, they still have a case against you for uploading.
There's no one to allow or disallow. No one controls the term.
"Device ID"? This discussion is about contact lists...
Neither do the researches, and they still found it. Excuses, excuses.
Then you have to get a Symbian S60 phone. They show dialogs request for permissions as the app needs them, not upfront. For example, I can launch Opera Mini and I have to give it network access, but I'm only asked for filesystem access (not with this name, of course) when I download some file.
First I could find, but there are more: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music.
Oh, and allow me to point out:
Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.
Studies show that pirates pay (and often pay a lot) for songs too. The dichotomy (pirate, buyer) doesn't exist.
Yes, if they can charge three (!) pennies instead of one, then it suddenly makes sense.
By the way, "thinking ahead" can also mean "thinking Portugal". We already pay 18 cents/kWh*.