The truth is that history is repeating itself here, I know this sounds off topic - but a few paragrapshs down I'll explain some more. The speculative industrial stock bubble in 1850 is very similar to the speculative internet stock bubble in 2000. The "war against indians" is very similar to the "war against terrorisim" - back then advances in transportation technology exposed us to indian culture in a very fast and dramatic way causing a culture clash, today the internet has exposed many unfree cultures arround the world to US culture in a very dramatic way to them and some have reacted by lashing out at us.
Back then it was about controlling the labor market (slavery) in the industrial era, today it is about controlling information in the information age. Back then they screamed bloody murder that people were stealing their property rights as industrialists wanted to use available labor without giving a damn about who alledgedly "owned it". Today many industires and individuals want to just be able to use information at their disposal to provide effective services, without being microregulated with a zillion tons of content restrictions. (like google's guntenberg project, apple's ipod, to name a few out of thousands)
The speculative advances of the industrial revolution also caused a period of growth followed by a deflationary adjustment. Today, the housing and every other market is way over saturated in debt - and the writing is on the wall. (watch out for a major economic "adjustment")
There were even people who desperately tried to get the slave states to get along with the free states who naievely didn't understand the nature of slavery or that the forces that would drive the industries apart were far greater than the ones that bound them together. Today there are all these people who are desperately trying to cling to the copyright system, even though any sincere thought will show it's pretty much DOA, and should be DOA.
So yes, the way congress is acting shouldn't be any supprise. Renember how they extended slavery to last forever for all colored people, renember how they punished people for simply teaching others how to read. Funny how copyrights have effectively been made to last forever, and copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
There are some important differeces though. First you can't controll information with physical violence, but you can attempt to controll it with BS, threats, lawsuits, brow-beating, etc.... Second, there is no nicely divided north and south. Instead it is more like a division between tech and content industries. Third, copyrights are not the only information people are trying to controll - "money" is a way of storing information about value and transaction costs. The Fed and some large financial institutions are definitely trying to controll it, and all hell is about to break loose in the market place as well as the copyright space. Fourth, there is compelling reason to believe that no government will be on the side of freedom this time until the battle is all over. A flaw of democratic government is that it is often more accountable to the media than it is to securing freedoms.
In IT or economics, the rules are the same. Government doesn't provide security, freedom provides security - in this case meaning free software. I know this will come as a shocker for some people, but the copyright incentive system that government promotes by it's vary nature incentivises poor security too. Solve that problem and the security problem will solve itself.
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, all the nations (why, even individuals) should be allowed to possess Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. Look at all the wars it would prevent!
I'm glad you mentioned that. Lets take it to it's logical conclusion. In fact, you're naieve if you don't think technology is going in that direction anyhow.
In such an environment, lets see how many would play back against white, man against woman, young against old, rich against poor, christian against muslim for political gain. In such a system, lets see how many criminals who make violent choices would get the revolving door treatment. Lets see how many victimless crimes would be witch hunted. Lets see how many tyrranical governments would be quietly ignored, rather then rooted out at all costs from day one. Lets see if government would coerce resources, land use, and policy to favor cramming people into packed metropolitan areas. Yeah, there'd be a rouge risk. Yeah, there is one now. But the point and logical conclusion still is: governments do not attempt to control ownership of weapons to prevent violence, they only attempt to control ownership of weapons to avoid reaping the hatred and appathy towards liberty that they sew.
Like fuck it is. Freedom from harm is. Freedom from having to worry about armed losers who probably can't even spell "safety catch" should be.
Do you even know why the 2nd amendment was placed into the US constitution? Do you even know why it's worded, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" instead of saying "the people may own shot guns" (hint, because it's presumed to be a right that exists above government). The right to bear arms *is* about freedom from harm, the right to bear arms *is* about having the freedom not to worry about armed loosers (especially armed loosers that govern). The right to secure your rights is a right, and because of that the 2nd amendment almost was made the first amendment.
When the US became a seperate nation and the Brits invaded to take it back - they encountered something never encountered before. Citizens armed with guns.
Year later, after the civil war, they were very quick to turn it back into a free territory, why? Because the army worried that it couldn't controll citizens with guns.
After sanctioning the killing of indians for over 100 years, the US govt did an about face and decided to try and make treaties and peace with them, why? Because the indians were comming to posess guns and the cost of killing them became huge.
What about how soviet invasion plans for american territories were scrapped time and time again, what about one of the reasons why the swiss were spared from the german advance during WW2, or how german citizens had their gun rights revoked just before ww2. What about countless other nations and, and countless other conflicts, and countless other genocides that simply could not have happened in a gun ownership environment. I think you're the one that needs to be educated.
The ironic thing is that people can already get these services if they pay a higher price.
If someone wants simple billing and no contracts, all they half to do is get pre-paid cellphone service and pick up refil cards at any 7-11 (They got those in MA right?).
If someone wants more coverage, all they half to do is get a satellite phone.
All this is really saying is that people are entitled to cell phone freebies at soneone elses expense. Shure has gone downhill from the days where a right ment things like free press and free religion. If MA wants to think about rights, perhaps they should look at the economic freedom rankings of their own state.
With all due respect, things like free speech and posession of waepons are a right. Cell phone freebies coercively imposed on everyone else it not. How about MA start focusing on the real rights, like quit pouncing on everyone with high taxes and regulations, and stop focusing on pretend rights like cell phone freebies.
The VHS vs Beta was about people trying to own the market for a particular format. This is about trying to controll information in an information age defined by the free flow of information. It is purely reactionary, and changes nothing about the fundamental fources at work here - they are trying to controll how people copy and distribute information just at the point in history where it has never been easier since the birth of human history to do just that. The truth is that when push comes to shove, the DRM people need the cooperation of their customers way more then their customers need theirs. They (the DRM's) are trying to seize controll, because they are vulnerable and they know it.
... is relocate their company in some offshore juristiction that isn't anal about copyrights, and then tell the RIAA to go to hell and rebroadcast whatever they desire to. Even if the RIAA sues them to cut of their revenue stream, it's a big world out there and a billion people are starting to come on-line to the global economy. The RIAA will have more problems with this then XM will.
that awareness is that all software markets, however "unrelated" they may seem, have linkages to each other.
I agree completely, so try taking a slice of IE code and sticking it Linux, now try it with mozilla code and see who doesn't get their pants sued off and who does. Now you know why free software is so competitive.
...it's entirely possible the vast majority of that increase is coming from Linux installed on cheap Chineese desktops...
Actually, I wouldn't be supprised if it was, the 3rd world isn't the same as it used to be. Linux is very well positioned.
There are over a billion people coming "on-line" to the global economy, with a potential limit of 6 billion. The latest business thinking is that it is better and easier to make $10 from a billion people, then it is to make $100 from an oversaturated US market segment of 100 million people. With the PC side pratically halving in cost every year, the Microsoft model of closed , controlled, proprietary, and profit optimized - is not well positioned to benefit from this market at all. (not to mention that with all the debt, over leveraged housing, over bought bond market, and over 100 trillion in outstanding derivative contracts - the US economy is teetering on the edge inspite of all the glowing reports from Washington DC. Gold is at 17 year highs, and the market is calling it under bought, what the hell do they know that we don't? )
For those who say that Windows is destined to own the desktop, 10 Million at 40% is one hell of a demographic/trend. 20% with a base of a 2 million would be enough to make any astute business student pee in their pants. In fact, I can't find the data, but from my memory that kind of uptake is stronger then Microsoft was. At this point, there must be serious market forces behind the wheel. And they are happening in spite of an entrenched well financed competitor??? I would say all hell is going to break loose in the next few years or so.
FYI, nearly 3/4 of software developers work in-house - they do not sell a boxed product for a license and never will. Yes, licensed software does absolutely nothing but get in the way for 3/4 of developers. Anybody who'se in this industry knows that just by asking arround.
Recently I created some software that interfaced with our companies hardware to make a very cool product. Investors decided that they liked it enough to put up big money to finance the project. If I had only closed software and tools to work with, and all it's restrictions, it would not of happened. IMHO, free software is all about commercial profit and anyone who says otherwise works for Microsoft or deosn't know what they're talking about.
The problem with Microsoft is that all these services that are the center of value can be offered over free software platforms.
If they try to step in and stem off the flow and create service value over the internet that works nicely with windows and doesn't work so nicely with Linux - then that will cause them to loose potential revenue (esp as the 3rd world comes online)
If they don't then windows is competing against Linux on even ground, and they will loose revenue too, because as the battle in the server space showed - they simply can't compete.
IMHO, Microsoft is not in a good position at this point.
I'm against the US controlling the domain system because they have absolutely no accountability toward respecting my freedoms, and they are a huge overbearing bureauocracy..... Now lets think about that a minute.....
Perhaps we should be encouraging the government to be closed source.
After all, the last thing we want to do is make it more efficient and less costly for the government to regulate and tax us. Does anyone think for a second that if the government saves money that their tax bill will be lower, or their services will be better?
Also, free software adoption is being driven by free market forces - I would love nothing more than to see Microsoft get stuck in the "bureauocratic" and political sectors, while the rest of the free market latches onto Linux and kicks ass.
Not to mention that governments total lack of spending controll would certainly drive up costs in the marketplace for everyone else who uses Linux services.
As much as I despise them, perhaps MS is doing us a favor here?
Well, the deal is that India and China are very quickly adding over a billion people to the global economy. A lot of companies are using this to persue a strategy that goes something like: "it is a hell of a lot more profitable to make a $1 avg profit off perhaps a billion people than maybe $100 avg profit off perhaps a million people is the saturated western market".
Make no doubt about it, this is not about subsidizing the poor, it is 100% pure market force profit motive at work here. In the next two decades, it is far more likely that the "poor" countries will subsidize us, as westerns get some of the advantage of cheap products taking off all over the world.
If things were always static, then you might be right. But things are never static, and that's where these governments get killed. Or more like, take the path that Germany did in the 1930's.
Look at US history. The indian wars, the civil war, the great depression, the racial issues in the 1940's, and the baby boom generation in the 1960's, and inflation in the 80's ( and now the financial system crash about to happen in 2005/06 with 270 TRILLION with a T dollars in outstanding derivative contracts ).
Has the US treated people like trash? Absolutely, but things eventually (more or less) changed and improved both politically and economically because the underlying forces securing individual freedom and liberty were in place moreso than in other countries that completely fell apart under similar pressures. Where are those underlying forces in singapore? Where are those underlying forces in China? They are not there, and when times change (which they always do) then the system will break down and they will loose economic freedoms (and thus economic strength) in addition to their already lost political freedoms.
Many of these companies are being short term prudent, but long term foolish when they invest in China without insisting on at least functioning democracy and basic freedoms first. About 10-30 years down the road, the people of China and the world will pay a bitter price for that failure of understanding.
Hate to tell you, but the telephone, sound recording devices, lightbulb, electrical wiring concepts, film and millions of other inventions were all developed in hopes of a patent so that they could profit.
Wrong, many of those were invented with patents as an afterthought. Many were invented in parallel by different inventors, but only one got a pantent.
That's the idea - if you create something novel and inventive, you get first right and limited monolopy to exploit it. Read up on Edison and Co and maybe you'll educate yourself on history before making an ignorant statement like that.
Uhh, perhaps you should read up. Edison spent a significant portion of his life bogged down in patent lawsuits to the detriment of profit and innovation.
Patents don't give small inventors leverage. I know that's the theory, but that's why I said lets look at the nature of patents rather than the theory of patents, and not force a flawed system.
Four guys created this invention. This makes them the little guy. If Lucent had not dropped this bomb on them, Lucent would have had to pay them whatever royalty fee the inventors wanted....
Well to me that is just another way of saying "we could make the system work in this case if we were just able to to force it some more" ... If the job had been big enough these guys could have retired on the spot.
Again, to me that is just another way of saying "we should focus on the business of patnets and not the nature of patents."
The only thing preventing this was the government crying "National Security!" thereby permitting Lucent to trick them into giving away a year's worth of work adapting the invention for underwater use. It is obvious that in any normal trial this behaviour by Lucent would have gotten them proverbially pimped slapped.
Also, to me that is saying "That it's all about pushing the theory of patnets while ignoring the nature of patents"
The fair solution is for the government to pay these four guys out of the fee they agreed to pay Lucent. The extremely fair solution would be for the fee to be trebled due to Lucent's ongoing duplicity.
The fair solution is to see the nature of patnets - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government - as the evil that it is. Get rid of patents all together, and let their knowledge folw and be used freely thru society in spite of powers of government.
Petents don't help innovation, and they especially do not help the little guy. They are also not pro-business (contrary to popular belief)
I think it is in human nature, then when a system doesn't work, that we try to force it and tweek it to work even if it's premise isn't sound. If people would stop thinking about the "theory" of patents, and stop thinking about the "business" of patnets, and start thinking about the nature of patents - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government. I think the debate about patnet problems would take on a whole new meaning.
Calling someone a pirate is worse than the "n-word". The "n-word" is a racial slur, but calling people "pirates" who share information freely is outright slander and deffimation. The "n-word" is rude and hurts peoples feelings, but "piracy" is an outright criminal accusation. And since when did copyrights help artists? And since when did copying their songs freely hurt them?
You're right, I shouldn't have compaired piracy to the "n-word", calling people pirates is far worse!
With all due respect, piracy is where you board a ship and murder people. Yes I know, technically it describes illegal copying too, but technically "niggers" is just an ordinaly descriptive adjective that describes people with dark colored skin. The bottom line, it is that the word piracy says a lot more about the ignorance of the people who use it than the morality of those who copy information at their disposal freely.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is that history is repeating itself here, I know this sounds off topic - but a few paragrapshs down I'll explain some more. The speculative industrial stock bubble in 1850 is very similar to the speculative internet stock bubble in 2000. The "war against indians" is very similar to the "war against terrorisim" - back then advances in transportation technology exposed us to indian culture in a very fast and dramatic way causing a culture clash, today the internet has exposed many unfree cultures arround the world to US culture in a very dramatic way to them and some have reacted by lashing out at us.
.... Second, there is no nicely divided north and south. Instead it is more like a division between tech and content industries. Third, copyrights are not the only information people are trying to controll - "money" is a way of storing information about value and transaction costs. The Fed and some large financial institutions are definitely trying to controll it, and all hell is about to break loose in the market place as well as the copyright space. Fourth, there is compelling reason to believe that no government will be on the side of freedom this time until the battle is all over. A flaw of democratic government is that it is often more accountable to the media than it is to securing freedoms.
Back then it was about controlling the labor market (slavery) in the industrial era, today it is about controlling information in the information age. Back then they screamed bloody murder that people were stealing their property rights as industrialists wanted to use available labor without giving a damn about who alledgedly "owned it". Today many industires and individuals want to just be able to use information at their disposal to provide effective services, without being microregulated with a zillion tons of content restrictions. (like google's guntenberg project, apple's ipod, to name a few out of thousands)
The speculative advances of the industrial revolution also caused a period of growth followed by a deflationary adjustment. Today, the housing and every other market is way over saturated in debt - and the writing is on the wall. (watch out for a major economic "adjustment")
There were even people who desperately tried to get the slave states to get along with the free states who naievely didn't understand the nature of slavery or that the forces that would drive the industries apart were far greater than the ones that bound them together. Today there are all these people who are desperately trying to cling to the copyright system, even though any sincere thought will show it's pretty much DOA, and should be DOA.
So yes, the way congress is acting shouldn't be any supprise. Renember how they extended slavery to last forever for all colored people, renember how they punished people for simply teaching others how to read. Funny how copyrights have effectively been made to last forever, and copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
There are some important differeces though. First you can't controll information with physical violence, but you can attempt to controll it with BS, threats, lawsuits, brow-beating, etc
In IT or economics, the rules are the same. Government doesn't provide security, freedom provides security - in this case meaning free software. I know this will come as a shocker for some people, but the copyright incentive system that government promotes by it's vary nature incentivises poor security too. Solve that problem and the security problem will solve itself.
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, all the nations (why, even individuals) should be allowed to possess Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. Look at all the wars it would prevent!
I'm glad you mentioned that. Lets take it to it's logical conclusion. In fact, you're naieve if you don't think technology is going in that direction anyhow.
In such an environment, lets see how many would play back against white, man against woman, young against old, rich against poor, christian against muslim for political gain. In such a system, lets see how many criminals who make violent choices would get the revolving door treatment. Lets see how many victimless crimes would be witch hunted. Lets see how many tyrranical governments would be quietly ignored, rather then rooted out at all costs from day one. Lets see if government would coerce resources, land use, and policy to favor cramming people into packed metropolitan areas. Yeah, there'd be a rouge risk. Yeah, there is one now. But the point and logical conclusion still is: governments do not attempt to control ownership of weapons to prevent violence, they only attempt to control ownership of weapons to avoid reaping the hatred and appathy towards liberty that they sew.
Like fuck it is. Freedom from harm is. Freedom from having to worry about armed losers who probably can't even spell "safety catch" should be.
Do you even know why the 2nd amendment was placed into the US constitution? Do you even know why it's worded, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" instead of saying "the people may own shot guns" (hint, because it's presumed to be a right that exists above government). The right to bear arms *is* about freedom from harm, the right to bear arms *is* about having the freedom not to worry about armed loosers (especially armed loosers that govern). The right to secure your rights is a right, and because of that the 2nd amendment almost was made the first amendment.
When the US became a seperate nation and the Brits invaded to take it back - they encountered something never encountered before. Citizens armed with guns.
Year later, after the civil war, they were very quick to turn it back into a free territory, why? Because the army worried that it couldn't controll citizens with guns.
After sanctioning the killing of indians for over 100 years, the US govt did an about face and decided to try and make treaties and peace with them, why? Because the indians were comming to posess guns and the cost of killing them became huge.
What about how soviet invasion plans for american territories were scrapped time and time again, what about one of the reasons why the swiss were spared from the german advance during WW2, or how german citizens had their gun rights revoked just before ww2. What about countless other nations and, and countless other conflicts, and countless other genocides that simply could not have happened in a gun ownership environment. I think you're the one that needs to be educated.
Taxes are just a part of the way people can have their economic freedoms restricted:
4 /econ_freedom/00_summary.html
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/200
They seem to be in the worst 10, so now who'se letting the facts get in the way.
The ironic thing is that people can already get these services if they pay a higher price.
If someone wants simple billing and no contracts, all they half to do is get pre-paid cellphone service and pick up refil cards at any 7-11 (They got those in MA right?).
If someone wants more coverage, all they half to do is get a satellite phone.
All this is really saying is that people are entitled to cell phone freebies at soneone elses expense. Shure has gone downhill from the days where a right ment things like free press and free religion. If MA wants to think about rights, perhaps they should look at the economic freedom rankings of their own state.
With all due respect, things like free speech and posession of waepons are a right. Cell phone freebies coercively imposed on everyone else it not. How about MA start focusing on the real rights, like quit pouncing on everyone with high taxes and regulations, and stop focusing on pretend rights like cell phone freebies.
The VHS vs Beta was about people trying to own the market for a particular format. This is about trying to controll information in an information age defined by the free flow of information. It is purely reactionary, and changes nothing about the fundamental fources at work here - they are trying to controll how people copy and distribute information just at the point in history where it has never been easier since the birth of human history to do just that. The truth is that when push comes to shove, the DRM people need the cooperation of their customers way more then their customers need theirs. They (the DRM's) are trying to seize controll, because they are vulnerable and they know it.
... is relocate their company in some offshore juristiction that isn't anal about copyrights, and then tell the RIAA to go to hell and rebroadcast whatever they desire to.
Even if the RIAA sues them to cut of their revenue stream, it's a big world out there and a billion people are starting to come on-line to the global economy. The RIAA will have more problems with this then XM will.
that awareness is that all software markets, however "unrelated" they may seem, have linkages to each other.
I agree completely, so try taking a slice of IE code and sticking it Linux, now try it with mozilla code and see who doesn't get their pants sued off and who does. Now you know why free software is so competitive.
...it's entirely possible the vast majority of that increase is coming from Linux installed on cheap Chineese desktops...
Actually, I wouldn't be supprised if it was, the 3rd world isn't the same as it used to be. Linux is very well positioned.
There are over a billion people coming "on-line" to the global economy, with a potential limit of 6 billion. The latest business thinking is that it is better and easier to make $10 from a billion people, then it is to make $100 from an oversaturated US market segment of 100 million people. With the PC side pratically halving in cost every year, the Microsoft model of closed , controlled, proprietary, and profit optimized - is not well positioned to benefit from this market at all. (not to mention that with all the debt, over leveraged housing, over bought bond market, and over 100 trillion in outstanding derivative contracts - the US economy is teetering on the edge inspite of all the glowing reports from Washington DC. Gold is at 17 year highs, and the market is calling it under bought, what the hell do they know that we don't? )
For those who say that Windows is destined to own the desktop, 10 Million at 40% is one hell of a demographic/trend. 20% with a base of a 2 million would be enough to make any astute business student pee in their pants. In fact, I can't find the data, but from my memory that kind of uptake is stronger then Microsoft was. At this point, there must be serious market forces behind the wheel. And they are happening in spite of an entrenched well financed competitor??? I would say all hell is going to break loose in the next few years or so.
FYI, nearly 3/4 of software developers work in-house - they do not sell a boxed product for a license and never will. Yes, licensed software does absolutely nothing but get in the way for 3/4 of developers. Anybody who'se in this industry knows that just by asking arround.
Recently I created some software that interfaced with our companies hardware to make a very cool product. Investors decided that they liked it enough to put up big money to finance the project. If I had only closed software and tools to work with, and all it's restrictions, it would not of happened. IMHO, free software is all about commercial profit and anyone who says otherwise works for Microsoft or deosn't know what they're talking about.
The problem with Microsoft is that all these services that are the center of value can be offered over free software platforms.
If they try to step in and stem off the flow and create service value over the internet that works nicely with windows and doesn't work so nicely with Linux - then that will cause them to loose potential revenue (esp as the 3rd world comes online)
If they don't then windows is competing against Linux on even ground, and they will loose revenue too, because as the battle in the server space showed - they simply can't compete.
IMHO, Microsoft is not in a good position at this point.
I'm against the US controlling the domain system because they have absolutely no accountability toward respecting my freedoms, and they are a huge overbearing bureauocracy. .... Now lets think about that a minute.....
Perhaps we should be encouraging the government to be closed source.
After all, the last thing we want to do is make it more efficient and less costly for the government to regulate and tax us. Does anyone think for a second that if the government saves money that their tax bill will be lower, or their services will be better?
Also, free software adoption is being driven by free market forces - I would love nothing more than to see Microsoft get stuck in the "bureauocratic" and political sectors, while the rest of the free market latches onto Linux and kicks ass.
Not to mention that governments total lack of spending controll would certainly drive up costs in the marketplace for everyone else who uses Linux services.
As much as I despise them, perhaps MS is doing us a favor here?
Well, the deal is that India and China are very quickly adding over a billion people to the global economy. A lot of companies are using this to persue a strategy that goes something like: "it is a hell of a lot more profitable to make a $1 avg profit off perhaps a billion people than maybe $100 avg profit off perhaps a million people is the saturated western market".
Make no doubt about it, this is not about subsidizing the poor, it is 100% pure market force profit motive at work here. In the next two decades, it is far more likely that the "poor" countries will subsidize us, as westerns get some of the advantage of cheap products taking off all over the world.
If things were always static, then you might be right. But things are never static, and that's where these governments get killed. Or more like, take the path that Germany did in the 1930's.
Look at US history. The indian wars, the civil war, the great depression, the racial issues in the 1940's, and the baby boom generation in the 1960's, and inflation in the 80's ( and now the financial system crash about to happen in 2005/06 with 270 TRILLION with a T dollars in outstanding derivative contracts ).
Has the US treated people like trash? Absolutely, but things eventually (more or less) changed and improved both politically and economically because the underlying forces securing individual freedom and liberty were in place moreso than in other countries that completely fell apart under similar pressures. Where are those underlying forces in singapore? Where are those underlying forces in China? They are not there, and when times change (which they always do) then the system will break down and they will loose economic freedoms (and thus economic strength) in addition to their already lost political freedoms.
Many of these companies are being short term prudent, but long term foolish when they invest in China without insisting on at least functioning democracy and basic freedoms first. About 10-30 years down the road, the people of China and the world will pay a bitter price for that failure of understanding.
Hate to tell you, but the telephone, sound recording devices, lightbulb, electrical wiring concepts, film and millions of other inventions were all developed in hopes of a patent so that they could profit.
Wrong, many of those were invented with patents as an afterthought. Many were invented in parallel by different inventors, but only one got a pantent.
That's the idea - if you create something novel and inventive, you get first right and limited monolopy to exploit it. Read up on Edison and Co and maybe you'll educate yourself on history before making an ignorant statement like that.
Uhh, perhaps you should read up. Edison spent a significant portion of his life bogged down in patent lawsuits to the detriment of profit and innovation.
OK, fine, but the nature of a patent is a lot different that a trade secret.
Patents don't give small inventors leverage. I know that's the theory, but that's why I said lets look at the nature of patents rather than the theory of patents, and not force a flawed system.
Four guys created this invention. This makes them the little guy. If Lucent had not dropped this bomb on them, Lucent would have had to pay them whatever royalty fee the inventors wanted....
... If the job had been big enough these guys could have retired on the spot.
Well to me that is just another way of saying "we could make the system work in this case if we were just able to to force it some more"
Again, to me that is just another way of saying "we should focus on the business of patnets and not the nature of patents."
The only thing preventing this was the government crying "National Security!" thereby permitting Lucent to trick them into giving away a year's worth of work adapting the invention for underwater use. It is obvious that in any normal trial this behaviour by Lucent would have gotten them proverbially pimped slapped.
Also, to me that is saying "That it's all about pushing the theory of patnets while ignoring the nature of patents"
The fair solution is for the government to pay these four guys out of the fee they agreed to pay Lucent. The extremely fair solution would be for the fee to be trebled due to Lucent's ongoing duplicity.
The fair solution is to see the nature of patnets - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government - as the evil that it is. Get rid of patents all together, and let their knowledge folw and be used freely thru society in spite of powers of government.
Petents don't help innovation, and they especially do not help the little guy. They are also not pro-business (contrary to popular belief)
I think it is in human nature, then when a system doesn't work, that we try to force it and tweek it to work even if it's premise isn't sound. If people would stop thinking about the "theory" of patents, and stop thinking about the "business" of patnets, and start thinking about the nature of patents - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government. I think the debate about patnet problems would take on a whole new meaning.
Calling someone a pirate is worse than the "n-word". The "n-word" is a racial slur, but calling people "pirates" who share information freely is outright slander and deffimation. The "n-word" is rude and hurts peoples feelings, but "piracy" is an outright criminal accusation. And since when did copyrights help artists? And since when did copying their songs freely hurt them?
You're right, I shouldn't have compaired piracy to the "n-word", calling people pirates is far worse!
With all due respect, piracy is where you board a ship and murder people. Yes I know, technically it describes illegal copying too, but technically "niggers" is just an ordinaly descriptive adjective that describes people with dark colored skin. The bottom line, it is that the word piracy says a lot more about the ignorance of the people who use it than the morality of those who copy information at their disposal freely.