Go back and read my comments. I was not talking about the public or a real debate. I was discussing the idea that RICO could be used to prosecute groups who deliberately lie to the public for their own gain. And I wasn't focused necessarily on the scientific arguments about AGW.
Either stick to the point or move on.
I didn't say the voters aren't smart enough, nor did I advocate authoritarian definitions of scientific "facts". My point is that one could support a RICO suit argument on the grounds that certain groups and individuals secretly accept as true the very statements they deny in public, and especially where that denial is made for profit, as a form of fraud. The cause has nothing to do with the science, but the behavior of the individuals who are deliberately sewing confusion for their own gain.
I agree in general. But the issue here is that certain people and groups are accused of agreeing with the climate science while orchestrating public denial of the science for personal gain. Still a tough question, but when framed that this way it seems more understandable. You really can't have a "democracy of liars".
Check out U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 20130053267 and 20120302556 (among others from the same assignee).
Capsid structures, like protein structures, can be useful starting points for drug development. Ultimately, however, the goal is to find a substance that will kill the disease without killing the patient. So far, no computer graphics package has replaced the grunt work of medicinal chemistry---methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile.
But most small companies are incorporated and require their inventors to assign the inventions to the incorporation. Making "small entity" available only to individuals would kill all patenting by small businesses. These companies don't have big pockets either. So much then for any pharmaceutical or biotech start ups as well as most software and electronics start up.
I'm all for a page limit, but 10 pages/10 drawings is way too small for most inventions. Some areas, especially pharma and biotech requrie lengthy, detailed exposition to meet the teaching requirements of the patent law. And good examiners don't read every page anyway, but look to find what's relevant based on the claims.'
Life's way more complex than individuals vs. big business.:-)
By "wait and see", I mean holding on to your patent and waiting to see if someone else's activity infringes and then seeking license fees or litigating. I think that after a suitable period patents should either be worked by their owners (i.e., make the invention your patent covers) or given up to the public, or if you want to sit on the patent then pay a large fee for the privilege.
I've spent about half my career managing patent departments. Even the big guys will take notice of fee increases for filing and maintenance, especially the latter. I believe that a fee structure that focuses on big fees for big filers and big maintenance fees for those who sit on their patents will be a help. Many large companies have patent departments that run on quota---the more you file, the bigger your bonus---and the result is just like the old days when IBM paid programmers by lines of code---lots of bloat and little quality.
Simply dealing the problem by "disposing earlier", as if we can just waive our hands and make the pendency problem disappear, will only make the situation worse. First, we'll return to the days of the Compton's patent---when the most egregious allowances become litigation burdens on the market. Second, a liberal allowance policy will only encourage big companies to file more and build their portfolios.
The patent system has always had a stated policy of encouraging the examiners to work directly with the applicants to find allowable claims. But the workload coupled with a very onerous and arbitrary "quality review" that was initiated by Bush appointee Dudas have crippled that route. So, yes, we indeed need better communication. But that will not fix things by itself.
The PTO already has a page charge for applications longer than 100 pages. While a more aggressive approach may help, the real problem is the number of applications, not the length of the applications.
Indeed, for many inventions more description may be helpful from the standpoint of teaching---the ultimate purpose of the patent system---since some inventions do require a lot of description.
I think it's too early to panic. Having practiced before the USPTO for over 20 years, I've seen many times how the small inventor lobby works its magic to protect the small filers. In fact, I was disappointed that the article didn't even mention the two-tier fee system, providing smaller fees for small businesses, that's been in place for many years now.
The PTO needs lots of fixes, but I agree that somethings need to change with the fee structure. Large companies can game the system by flooding the system with new applications, re-filing to wear down examiners, and taking frivolous appeals. Wise changes to the fee structures, which take into account these sorts of tactics, as well as increasing maintenance fees to discourage "wait and see" litigation, will be helpful to the small guy. Hopefully the PTO will show some wisdom.
There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
It's not sophistry, either.
Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
And that is the true beginning of understanding.
Regards.
I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point.
Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.
We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...
Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems"
Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"
Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another.
For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.
I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding.
Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.
I like the quote on Slashdot, but reading his blog I get the sense that he actively practices what he preaches against. Reducing people and complex issues to simplistic (and usually undefined) categories is the heart of the oversimplification that Sanchez laments. We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them, which means we need to understand our selves.
There is a difference between "there but for grace of God go I", and calling out reckless behavior. Either the Quants are truly incompetent, or they looked the other way as they and their bosses made piles of money. I'm sure one day we'll have enough facts to get a clear idea of the answer. But having been married to a former investment banker, I doubt severely this was a case of good people felled by bad luck.
Ja! Zey vere chust following orders!
Get real! There is a world of difference between the PhD "geniuses" working for Merrill, Lehman, and all the other financial houses, and the janitors and secretaries. Lumping them all in the same boat is just cheap sophistry. They certainly didn't get the same compensation.
The Quants and their managers knew quite well what they were doing and the difference between reality and Wall Street's propaganda. The Quants were all happy to keep their mouths shut so long as the big bucks rolled in. As you said, they just wanted the big paycheck---no questions asked.
Nice idea, but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you're making lots of money. Does he really think that the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance? No! We're talking about used car salespersons in $5,000.00 suits. The financial industry is completely amoral. The only law is the law of the jungle.
You can't confuse greed with a lack of quality control.
I don't think you can find a good solution just by technical means alone. Having run into this problem as a company attorney, I can say that the best defense is to define and enforce a strong document management policy. Technical solutions without a defined policy will only make you a pariah.
Also, you should check to see how the specs came to light in the document at issue. I recall one episode where one of our business development personnel sent a draft contract (in Word format) to a potential customer having used an earlier contract with another customer as a template. The BD person deleted the details from the earlier contract and inserted new (less favorable) terms. The other party turned on the redline mode to see the deletions and insertions and demanded the same terms as the earlier party. Everyone involved at our end was pretty embarrassed. The solution was to require than all drafts of all legal and business documents be sent in PDF or a "scrubbed" version of the Word document using a product from Workshare.
What sort of documents are you writing? For whom are you writing? It would be easier to offer advice if we knew your goals.
I just returned to LaTeX after many years suffering with various WYSIWIG programs, mostly MS Word. Frankly, given that Knuth wrote TeX (and therefore LaTeX) to emulate mathematical typesetting, and the inherent incompatibility between rendering text on the screen and on paper, I don't see any better options. Have you tried some of the LaTeX front ends like TeXnic Center or WinEdt (Windows), or Kile (Linux), that provide macro buttons for creating the more complex document elements like tables and formulas? (I know there are similar programs for the Mac, but I don't remember them off hand.)
Slashdot Mirror
Go back and read my comments. I was not talking about the public or a real debate. I was discussing the idea that RICO could be used to prosecute groups who deliberately lie to the public for their own gain. And I wasn't focused necessarily on the scientific arguments about AGW. Either stick to the point or move on.
I didn't say the voters aren't smart enough, nor did I advocate authoritarian definitions of scientific "facts". My point is that one could support a RICO suit argument on the grounds that certain groups and individuals secretly accept as true the very statements they deny in public, and especially where that denial is made for profit, as a form of fraud. The cause has nothing to do with the science, but the behavior of the individuals who are deliberately sewing confusion for their own gain.
I agree in general. But the issue here is that certain people and groups are accused of agreeing with the climate science while orchestrating public denial of the science for personal gain. Still a tough question, but when framed that this way it seems more understandable. You really can't have a "democracy of liars".
Check out U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 20130053267 and 20120302556 (among others from the same assignee). Capsid structures, like protein structures, can be useful starting points for drug development. Ultimately, however, the goal is to find a substance that will kill the disease without killing the patient. So far, no computer graphics package has replaced the grunt work of medicinal chemistry---methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile.
No, the PTO is self-funding. In fact, part---but by no means all---of the problem has been Congress raiding the PTO's income stream. See: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/director-kappos-on-the-usptos-lack-of-funding.html.
But most small companies are incorporated and require their inventors to assign the inventions to the incorporation. Making "small entity" available only to individuals would kill all patenting by small businesses. These companies don't have big pockets either. So much then for any pharmaceutical or biotech start ups as well as most software and electronics start up. I'm all for a page limit, but 10 pages/10 drawings is way too small for most inventions. Some areas, especially pharma and biotech requrie lengthy, detailed exposition to meet the teaching requirements of the patent law. And good examiners don't read every page anyway, but look to find what's relevant based on the claims.' Life's way more complex than individuals vs. big business. :-)
By "wait and see", I mean holding on to your patent and waiting to see if someone else's activity infringes and then seeking license fees or litigating. I think that after a suitable period patents should either be worked by their owners (i.e., make the invention your patent covers) or given up to the public, or if you want to sit on the patent then pay a large fee for the privilege.
I've spent about half my career managing patent departments. Even the big guys will take notice of fee increases for filing and maintenance, especially the latter. I believe that a fee structure that focuses on big fees for big filers and big maintenance fees for those who sit on their patents will be a help. Many large companies have patent departments that run on quota---the more you file, the bigger your bonus---and the result is just like the old days when IBM paid programmers by lines of code---lots of bloat and little quality. Simply dealing the problem by "disposing earlier", as if we can just waive our hands and make the pendency problem disappear, will only make the situation worse. First, we'll return to the days of the Compton's patent---when the most egregious allowances become litigation burdens on the market. Second, a liberal allowance policy will only encourage big companies to file more and build their portfolios. The patent system has always had a stated policy of encouraging the examiners to work directly with the applicants to find allowable claims. But the workload coupled with a very onerous and arbitrary "quality review" that was initiated by Bush appointee Dudas have crippled that route. So, yes, we indeed need better communication. But that will not fix things by itself.
The PTO already has a page charge for applications longer than 100 pages. While a more aggressive approach may help, the real problem is the number of applications, not the length of the applications. Indeed, for many inventions more description may be helpful from the standpoint of teaching---the ultimate purpose of the patent system---since some inventions do require a lot of description.
I think it's too early to panic. Having practiced before the USPTO for over 20 years, I've seen many times how the small inventor lobby works its magic to protect the small filers. In fact, I was disappointed that the article didn't even mention the two-tier fee system, providing smaller fees for small businesses, that's been in place for many years now. The PTO needs lots of fixes, but I agree that somethings need to change with the fee structure. Large companies can game the system by flooding the system with new applications, re-filing to wear down examiners, and taking frivolous appeals. Wise changes to the fee structures, which take into account these sorts of tactics, as well as increasing maintenance fees to discourage "wait and see" litigation, will be helpful to the small guy. Hopefully the PTO will show some wisdom.
There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
It's not sophistry, either.
Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
And that is the true beginning of understanding.
Regards.
I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point. Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.
We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...
Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems" Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"
Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another. For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.
I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding. Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.
I like the quote on Slashdot, but reading his blog I get the sense that he actively practices what he preaches against. Reducing people and complex issues to simplistic (and usually undefined) categories is the heart of the oversimplification that Sanchez laments. We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them, which means we need to understand our selves.
There is a difference between "there but for grace of God go I", and calling out reckless behavior. Either the Quants are truly incompetent, or they looked the other way as they and their bosses made piles of money. I'm sure one day we'll have enough facts to get a clear idea of the answer. But having been married to a former investment banker, I doubt severely this was a case of good people felled by bad luck.
Ja! Zey vere chust following orders! Get real! There is a world of difference between the PhD "geniuses" working for Merrill, Lehman, and all the other financial houses, and the janitors and secretaries. Lumping them all in the same boat is just cheap sophistry. They certainly didn't get the same compensation. The Quants and their managers knew quite well what they were doing and the difference between reality and Wall Street's propaganda. The Quants were all happy to keep their mouths shut so long as the big bucks rolled in. As you said, they just wanted the big paycheck---no questions asked.
Touche! :-)
Nice idea, but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you're making lots of money. Does he really think that the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance? No! We're talking about used car salespersons in $5,000.00 suits. The financial industry is completely amoral. The only law is the law of the jungle. You can't confuse greed with a lack of quality control.
With a little sour cream and chives, he'll be just right. (Mmmmmmmmmmm, sour cream and red potato men.)
I don't think you can find a good solution just by technical means alone. Having run into this problem as a company attorney, I can say that the best defense is to define and enforce a strong document management policy. Technical solutions without a defined policy will only make you a pariah. Also, you should check to see how the specs came to light in the document at issue. I recall one episode where one of our business development personnel sent a draft contract (in Word format) to a potential customer having used an earlier contract with another customer as a template. The BD person deleted the details from the earlier contract and inserted new (less favorable) terms. The other party turned on the redline mode to see the deletions and insertions and demanded the same terms as the earlier party. Everyone involved at our end was pretty embarrassed. The solution was to require than all drafts of all legal and business documents be sent in PDF or a "scrubbed" version of the Word document using a product from Workshare.
What sort of documents are you writing? For whom are you writing? It would be easier to offer advice if we knew your goals. I just returned to LaTeX after many years suffering with various WYSIWIG programs, mostly MS Word. Frankly, given that Knuth wrote TeX (and therefore LaTeX) to emulate mathematical typesetting, and the inherent incompatibility between rendering text on the screen and on paper, I don't see any better options. Have you tried some of the LaTeX front ends like TeXnic Center or WinEdt (Windows), or Kile (Linux), that provide macro buttons for creating the more complex document elements like tables and formulas? (I know there are similar programs for the Mac, but I don't remember them off hand.)